# Long v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · June 29, 2005 · 916 So. 2d 87

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7778580

## Case

- **Full name:** James W. LONG v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 29, 2005
- **Citations:** 916 So. 2d 87; 2005 La. LEXIS 2096; 2005 WL 1527757
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Knoll
- **Judges:** Johnson, Knoll, Reasons, Traylor
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7778580

## Opinion text

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
Rehearing denied.
KNOLL, J.,
dissenting in part on the application for rehearing.'
LI would grant a rehearing in part only on the issue concerning whether the three letters exchanged between the village of Bonita and DOTD were discoverable and admissible. I find it significant Bonita’s mayor penned two of the letters in question and all three letters were maintained in the village files. In my view, these letters form the very gray area of information that may be discoverable and admissible under a broad interpretation of 23 U.S.C. § 409 .
Although the opinion of this Court analyzes the current federal and state jurisprudence, I find it fails to duly recognize the well-accepted tenet that 23 U.S.C. § 409 is a statute that establishes an evi-dentiary privilege and “must be construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for the truth.” Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 144-45 , 123 S.Ct. 720 , 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003); see also Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 , 102 S.Ct. 1103 , 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982). It is clear this Court attempts to view the documents in question with regard to the purpose for which they were created, but I find it does so without attention to the narrow interpretation Pierce County requires. Accordingly, I am concerned future litigants may view this Court’s resolution of the issue at hand as evidence that 23 U.S.C. § 409 may be broadly interpreted when narrow interpretation should be this Court’s guidepost. Therefore, I would grant rehearing solely to further address this issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7778580. Public record. Not legal advice.