I: CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH FANS If?. {5'2 STATE OF LOUISIANA ,m r. ?a NO- k( (O DIVISION . CHARLES MALDONADO xx - VERSUS LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED: DEPUTY CLERK PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the Petitioner herein, Charles Maldonado (?Petitioner?), who ?les this Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and who, with respect to same, do hereby allege, aver, espouse, attest and state as follows, to-wit: 1. The Lens is a Louisiana non-profit corporation and an award-winning non-pro?t, investigative newsroom, publishing online at 2. Petitioner Charles Maldonado was and is at all times relevant a resident of Louisiana, an employee of The Lens and a journalist covering local government in the City of New Orleans. 3. Made Defendant/Respondent herein are Leon A. Cannizzaro, in his capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney, the custodian of records for a political subdivision and/or instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, enjoying the right to sue and be sued. 4. On April 26, 2017, Petitioner Maldonado published an article on The Lens? website reporting that the Orleans Parish District Attorney?s Of?ce, which Defendant leads, was using documents it labeled ?Subpoenas? to call witnesses in for interviews regarding criminal prosecutions.l These notices threatened jail time or ?nes for a failure to comply. See Exhibit A. 5. It was discovered during Maldonado?s reporting that these Subpoenas,? which is the terminology Defendant?s representative Chris Bowman used during interviews with The I See Exhibit A or Lens, were not authorized by a Judge or issued by the Clerk of Court, leading to a signi?cant controversy regarding their issuance. 6. The story became national news and a topic of public interest and concern in the New Orleans area. The Lens? coverage has continued, and other local media have followed suit. 7. On or about April 27, 2017, Petitioner did cause a request for public records under the Louisiana Public Records Law, R.S. 44:1 et seq., to be propounded upon Defendant requesting: ?Any and all Subpoenas" delivered to witnesses beginning Jan. 1, 2016 through the date of this request (4/27/17). See Exhibit 8. Petitioner received a responsive letter to the April 27, 2017 request on May 2, 2017 denying the request. See Exhibit 9. The denial letter states, inter alia, that providing for inspection or copies of Subpoenas? used would be overly burdensome on the Defendant?s of?ce, and that the request is overly broad. Id. 10. A writ of mandamus, which will ?compel the performance of a ministerial duty required by law,? La. C.C.P. Art. 3863, is appropriate to compel Defendant to abide by his statutory duty to produce the records, in whole or in part, made subject of Petitioner?s request. 11. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court order production of the outstanding request immediatelyLouisiana that: ?No person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law.? La. Const. Art. 12, Sec. 3. 13. Furthermore, ?Providing access to public records is a responsibility and duty of the appointive or elective of?ce of a custodian and his employees.? La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 44:31. 14. ?All persons and public bodies having custody and control of any public record? are required by law to preserve the public record ?for a period of at least three years.? La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 44:36. 15. A custodian of Public Records has three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays, to produce public records. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 44:33. 16. Under the same law, any person who is denied the right to inspect or copy a record ?may institute proceedings for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, injunctive or declaratory relief, together with attorney?s fees, costs and damages as provided for by this Section, in the district court for the parish in which the of?ce of the custodian is located.? La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17. Suits ?led under the Public Records Law ?shall be tried by preference and in a summary manner.? La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 18. As stated in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. the ?burden of proving that a public record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction shall rest with the custodian.? 19. The Louisiana Supreme Court has further held that these laws should be ?construed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records, and that access can be denied only when a law, speci?cally and unequivocally, provides Whenever there is doubt as to whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public's right to see.? Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933, 936 (La. 1984). 20. Petitioner asserts that the outstanding request is appropriately narrow and well within the faculties and capability of the Defendant to answer, 21. Petitioner avers that the Defendant has arbitrarily and capriciously withheld the records sought and has arbitrarily and unreasonably failed to respond to the request as contemplated by La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 44:32. Petitioner therefore requests that this Court award actual damages and civil penalties in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 22. Petitioner furthermore avers that upon judgment of this Honorable Court, he should be awarded reasonable attorneys? fees and other costs of litigation under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. prevailing petitioner] shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of litigation?) [Emphasis added. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the above and foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, together with the facts stated herein, the exhibits appended hereunto, and the law and equities applicable in the premises, Petitioner respectfully moves this Honorable Court to grant his Petition and order Defendant to allow inspection or produce copies of the records sought. Petitioner further (separately and/or conjunctively) prays for this Honorable Court to ?order the issuance of an alternative writ directing the defendant to perform the act demanded or to show cause to the contrary,? in accordance with Louisiana law. Petitioner ?nally prays for civil penalties for arbitrary and/or capricious failure to produce the records, any and all equitable relief as is available, all costs of this proceeding, and attorneys? fees as provided for under the Louisiana Public Records Law, as well as all other various relief to which Petitioner is entitled. Respectfully Submitted, STERN ERG, NACCARI WHITE, L. L. C. scdn?T (#33390) JOSEPH MARRIOTT (#36566) 643 Magazine Street Suite 402 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 324?2141l Fax: (504) 534-8961 scott@snw.law ioseph@snw.law Counsel for Charles Maldonado PLEASE SERVE: Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. In His Capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH STATE OF LOUISIANA 1 . 1. NO. DIVISION SECTION: THE LENS AND CHARLES MALDONADO VERSUS LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED: DEPUTY CLERK ORDER Considering the Petition for Writ Of Mandamus flled herein on behalf of Petitioner Charles Maldonado; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant, Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., in his Official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney, be served with the foregoing Petition and a copy of this Order, and that an alternative writ of mandamus shall issue herewith, directing and compelling Defendant to immediately produce the public records requested, or Show cause to the contrary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing shall be held on the day of 2017, at o?clock and Defendant shall Show cause as to: 0 Why said records should not be produced as requested, and why the alternative writ of mandamus issued by this Order shall not be made peremptory and permanent; - Why Defendant should not be taxed with costs and attorneys? fees, as well as penalties for an arbitrary and capricious failure to comply with the law, as permitted by law, and all other equitable and just relief as may be permitted by law. New Orleans, Louisiana, this day Of 2017. JUDGE PLEASE SERVE: Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. In His Capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 The Lens i Criminal Justice 2311 an 15 {3 2=52 Orleans Parish prosecutors are using fake subpoenas to pressure witnesses to talk to them at; By Charles Maldonado, Staff writer April 26, 2017 2:34pm Editor? note: This story has been updated with a report that the District Attorney's O?ice has said the practice will end. The notice Tiffany Lacrois received in November had printed at the top, next to a logo of the Orleans Parish District Attorney?s Of?ce. It ordered her to meet with a prosecutor to discuss the upcoming trial of Cardell Hayes. charged with murdering former Saints player Will Smith. FINE AND IMPRISONMENT MAY BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS it declared . But itwasn?t authorized by a judge. it wasn't issued by the Clerk of Court, which . . . .I'Hhtl'. {hits sends out subpoenas. And Lacrout wouldnt have gone to jail if she had ignored it. In 9m other words. it was fake. The Orleans Parish District Attorneys Of?ce is sending out notices like this that threatenjnil time ifpeoplc don't come injor questioning. But they're not . . . legal documents bet?anse they haven?t been authorized by a judge. The notice came from District Attorney Leon Lanniazaros office. His prosecutors are using these fake subpoenas to pressure witnesses to talk to them -- a tactic that defense lawyers and legal experts said is unethical, ifnot illegal. "There?s no question this is improper," said Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman. a former prosecutor in New York City and an expert in prosecutorial misconduct. ?Clearly. it's unethical because the prosecutor is engaging in fraudulent conduct." he said. ?It is inappropriate for the District Attorney?s Of?ce to falsely suggest that this document 18 a subpoena.? ?Dane Ciolino, Loyola University law professor Colin Reingold. an attorney with Orleans Public Defenders. said the practice ?borders on fraud or forgery. and certainlyl see ethical problems with compelling someone to come in under false pretenses." Assistant District Attorney Chris Bowman, who serves as Cannizzaro?s spokesman, defended the use ofthe documents, which he called "noti?cations" or "notices." ?The district attorne does not see an le al issues with res ect to this olicv,? he said. . Exhibit A Lens v. Cannizzaro 7tth26torleans-pari itne sses-to?talk-to-t hem)r 1 t5 Cannizzaro?s of?ce deals with "an extraordinary number of cases,? he said, including many in which potentially crucial witnesses are reluctant to talk. Have you received one of these fake subpoenas? We want to talk to you. Email editor@thelensnola.org or call or text 504-229-2346. ?Maybe in some places if you send a letter on the letterhead that says, ?You need to come in and talk to us,? that is sufficient. It isn?t here," he said. ?That is why that looks as formal as it does." But Wednesday, after The Lens told Bowman that our story would report that legal experts say the practice could be illegal. The New Orleans Advocate reported that the DA's of?ce had announced it would end the practice 2b796cd09c6e.html) . The Lens received no such announcement. Bowman didn?t know how often these notices are used, but he said the practice predates Cannizzaro?s tenure by decades. ?The district attorney does not see any legal issues with respect to this policy.? ?Assistant District Attorney Chris Bowman The Lens has found three recent cases in which witnesses received the so-called subpoenas. In two cases, people with ties to the defendant received them days before the trial. A lawyer told us about another instance, but we couldn?t con?rm it. ?It?s no different than if we just put a letter out on our letterhead,? Bowman said. There is one important difference. To the untrained eye. these appear to be legal documents, complete with the threat of arrest. ?It is inappropriate for the District Attorney?s Of?ce to falsely suggest that this document is a subpoena.? said Dane Ciolino. a Loyola law professor and legal ethics expert, ?and to suggest that disregard of the document can be punishable by ?ne or imprisonment." Subpoenas are used to compel someone to testify or produce evidence. They?re typically used for trials and hearings, and they?re issued by the clerk of court . Louisiana law also allows district attorneys with a judge's authorization to use subpoenas to force witnesses to be questioned outside court . A judge isn't present at those meetings. and prosecutors can exclude anyone. except a witness? attorney. People who ignore a subpoena can be charged with contempt of court and arrested. To subpoena someone for one of these private interviews, prosecutors have to submit a written application to a judge in which they present ?reasonable grounds? to question the person. The judge decides whether to order the court clerk to issue the subpoena. The point of court approval, Ciolino told The Lens, is to prevent ?possible abuse" by the office. In these cases, the District Attorney's Office didn?t go to a judge. Instead, the office sent the notices itself. WITNESSES SUMMONED TO TALK TO PROSECUTORS After Lacroix got her fake subpoena, her lawyer Anthony Ibert asked a judge to quash it. As he noted in a court filing. the ?subpoena" didn?t appear to have been issued by the clerk of court as the law rag?p?bit A Lens v. Cannizzaro http://thclensnolaorg/ZO rc-witnesscs-to?talk-to-them/ 2/5 After Ibert objected. Bowman said. the office withdrew it and asked the judge to issue a subpoena for [.acroix to show up in court. lbert initially refused to provide Lacroix?s address, Bowman said, but the judge insisted. More from our investigation: Prosecutors in Jefferson Parish have used fake subpoenas similar to those in New Orleans ?These were witnesses; these were not people who were accused of criminal wrongdoing," he said. ?And they're getting defense attorneys to come in and try to get them from going on the stand.? He acknowledged it?s their right to do that. Another client of lbert?s, Fayona Bailey. received a fake subpoena in a different murder ease earlier this year. Ibert objected then too, and the District Attomey?s Of?ce asked a judge for a real subpoena to show up in court. Bowman con?rmed that the District Attorney's Of?ce used an invalid subpoena in that case. ?Maybe in some places if you send a letter on the letterhead that says, ?You need I come in and talk to us,? .. . that is suf?cient. It isn?t here.? ?Assistant District Attorney Chris Bowman Thomas Frampton, a public defender, said it happened in one of his cases. Just days before his client was to be tried on a theft charge in early 2016, a character witness for the defendant got one of these notices. The witness was Larry ,Bagneris, a longtime civil rights activist and director of the city?s Human Relations Commission commissionl) . ?i Bagneris said he got a call from someone with the District Attorney's Of?ce. said, don't think I should be talking to you. Bagneris said. ?Two days later. I got a subpoena. Two gentlemen came to my of?ce." Bagneris said the investigators who delivered the notice insisted he come to the of?ce. Though he complained to the office about how he was treated. he complied. He said he was questioned about the details of the case. No witness subpoena for Bagneris appears in the of?cial online case summary. Frampton said he didn?t learn until after the defendant was acquitted that Bagneris had been called in to talk to prosecutors. Until he was contacted by The Lens. Bagneris believed the subpoena was real and approved by the court. Bowman said he didn?t have any information about this instance. Bagneris was not called to testify at the trial. Even so, Gershman said contact between prosecutors and defense witnesses, without a judge?s authorization or the defense attorney?s knowledge. is potentially ?fraught with coercion." ?It?s very possible that this witness, after this meeting, might be scared to testify," he said. ?All of this is fraught with very, very dangerous consequences. For the system. For the defense. And maybe for the prosecutor if he?s caught violating" the Code of Criminal Procedure. DO FAKE SUBPOENAS CROSS AN ETHICAL A LEGAL Exhibit A Lens v. Cannizzaro 3/5 Canniuaro?s of?ce has been accused of overly aggressive tactics. Prosecutors frequently use the state?s habitual offender law 12404~8803-t to secure long sentences, even for nonviolent crimes. They have charged witnesses with perjury if they rccant their testimony. And earlier this month, the watchdog group Court Watch NOLA found several cases in which the of lice obtained arrest warrants for victims of crimes because they did not cooperate with prosecutors. New Orleans City Councilman and defense attorney Jason Williams said the use of fake witness subpoenas ?ts into a pattern of overzealous prosecution. ?All of this is fraught with very, very dangerous consequences. For the system. For the defense. And maybe for the prosecutor.? ?Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman can only imagine how dangerous this could potentially be," he said. ?If older assistant district attorneys are encouraging younger, less experienced [assistant district attorneys] to do this, it creates a culture." Ibert said he thinks the fake subpoenas may be a type of forgery The documents don?t include a judge's name or signature. But Louisiana?s law on forgery includes "to alter. make. complete, execute. or authenticate any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act." At the very least. Ibert said, the practice violates the rules of conduct for attorneys. One of those rules requires lawyers to be truthful when dealing with third parties othersl) such as witnesses and victims. The fake subpoenas could violate that rule, he said. because ?you?ve misrepresented yourself to a third party.? Bowman responded, ?You?re talking to criminal lawyers that do not want the district attorney to get witnesses to come into court. Criminal lawyers who don?t want witnesses cooperating at all." Generally, he said. guess the question is, has anyone been fined and imprisoned? Which according to the stuff you?ve showed me so far. they absolutely have not been." ?You?re talking to criminal lawyers that do not want the district attorney to get witnesses to come into court.? ?Assistant District Attorney Chris Bowman Pete Adams, the director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, declined to comment on the practice. Ibert, who served as an assistant district attorney under Harry Connick and Eddie Jordan, admitted they used a similar tactic. The of?ce had ?preprinted forms that said 'subpoenai" he said. "They were normally sent with a letter that said. please meet with me.? Ibert said those documents did not, however. threaten jail or lines. He stopped using them after he was warned by a magistrate commissioner that they were likely illegal. Williams said he believes the bar association will look into the matter. "At the end of the day, it?s a ruse." If a defense attorney did something similar, \Villiams said. guarantee you this DA would try to prosecute that defense attorney.? Exhibit A Lens v. Cannizzaro 4/5 This story was updated qfi?erpubifmtion to re?ect the New Orleans Advocatek report that the pmcficc will end. (April 26. 2017) Help us report this story Report an error The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover. Exhibit A Lens v. Cannizzaro .orgl?ll?} 7/04126rorlcans-pari sh-prosccutors-are-us ing-f?ake~ 5/5 The Lens Mail - Attn: District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Public . . a Charles Maldonado lociglc Attn: District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Public records request Charles Maldonado Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:58 PM To: emurphy@orleansda.com Corrected version Good afternoon: Pursuant to the Louisiana Public Records Act R.S. 44:1 et seq, request access to, and reserve the right to make copies or scan, the following records. Please note that La. R.S. 44:33 requires you to provide the records immediately if they are not in active use. The law requires you to inform me, then schedule a time within THREE BUSINESS DAYS of this request when the responsive records will be made available. ?Any and all Subpoenas" delivered to witnesses beginning Jan. 1, 2016 through the date of this request (4/27/17). Thank you, Charles Maldonado Staff Writer The Lens (504) 229-2346 On Thu. Apr 27, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Charles Maldonado wrote: Good afternoon: Pursuant to the Louisiana Public Records Act R.S. 44:1 et seq. I request access to, and reserve the right to make copies or scan, the following records. Please note that La. R.S. 44:33 requires you to provide the records immediately if they are not in active use. The law requires you to inform me, then schedule a time within THREE BUSINESS DAYS of this request when the responsive records will be made available. ?-Any and all Subpoenas" delivered to witnesses beginning Jan. 1. 2016 through the date of this request (4/28/17). Thank you. Charles Maldonado Staff Writer The Lens (504) 229-2346 Exhibit Lens v. Cannizzaro lofl AM Of?ce of the i?nrish District Leon A. Canninaro. Jr. iltsl'BttJ ay 2. 20]? Charles Maldonado Staff Writer The Lens 4434 Earhart Bird. Ste. New Orleans. LA 70125 Re: Public Records Request Dear Mr. Maldonado: This correspondence comes in response to your cmaii dated April 27. 20?. In your letter. you request a copy of "any and all Subpoenas deiivered to witnesses beginning Jan. 1. 2016 through the date of this request (4527317).? The (Means Parish Distrit?t Attorney's Of?ce does not maintain a copy 01? Subpoenas" delivered to witnesses in a particular ?le or iocution. nor does the District Attorney?s Of?ce maintain a iist of cases in which a Subpoena? was issued. Under the Public Records Law. a records custodian is not required to compile a list in order to respond to :1 public records request. Rather, the custodian need only make the record available in the particular format in which it is maintained. A case on point is Emmi. 064 Solid l3? (La. App. ist Cir. 1095'). in that case. the executive director of Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) submitted a public records request to the Louisiana insurance Commissioner for a list of cash investments on estates where LIGA has claims. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal held that the request gave a reasonable description of the information sought and required the insurance Commissioner to provide bunk. reports and cash and cash equivalent reports containing the int?ornuttirm requested. even thou@ no ?list? containing the inibnnation existed. since the requested infon?n?lint?. was readily a 'ailable through ?nancial reports described in the written request. The Court csplicitiy rejected the argument mode by Commissioner Bron-u that "a proper request must .t'pecszit-ulh' describe the desired record and the court may only issue a writ ot? mandamus for the production of existing records which were speci?cally requested and subsequently withheld b} the custodian." 664 So.2d at 134-35 (emphasis in original). and required C'mnmissioncr Broom "to locate and reproduce those documents in his possession or control which contained the. requested infonnation." 664 Sold at 135. in reaching this conciusion. the First. Circuit held as foiiows: if a custodian of records couid avoid compiiuncc with pubiic records request which clearly describes the ini'onnution sought simply because the request does 61?) South W'ititc New ("lrleatis. I mustang "(ll 0 40-11332 l-?t i -i Exhibit Lens v. Cannizzaro Charles Maldonado May 2. 2017 Page 2 not give the speci?c name or type of document requested, then the public?s right of access to public documents would be hollow indeed. it It It The custodian cannot be excused from complying with the request merely because the information is kept in a format different from that which was requested or because the documents responsive to the request contain additional public information. Nungesser, 664 So.2d at 135 and 136. Thus, in accordance with the First Circuit?s ruling in Nungesser, a custodian of public records must comply with a request for access even if the infomiation is kept in a format different from that which is requested. However. the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the First Circuit. holding as follows: Nungesser requested a list which did not exist. Brown was not required to produce a list which did not exist and properly refused Nungesser's request. Accordingly. the judgment of the court of appeal af?rming the trial court?s judgment ordering Brown to comply with Nungesser?s request and imposing civil penalties is reversed. Nungesser v. Brown. 667 So.2d l036 (La. 1996), rehearing denied. 671 So.2d 929 (La. 1996). See also Becket! v. Serpus. 112 So.3d 348. 353 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013): Williams Law Firm v. Bd. of Sup 'rs of Louisiana Slate Un?t. 878 So.2d 557. 563 (La. App. Cir. 2004). The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal most recently applied this principle as follows: Fifth. the document requested must exist. Courts have ?refused to impose a duty on public bodies to ?create' documents not already in existence.? Jack M. Weiss and Mary Ellen Roy, OPEN GOVERNMENT GUIDE: OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS LAWS 1N LOUISIANA. 16 (6th ed. 2011) (citing Nimgesser v. Brown. 667 So.2d 1036. 1037 (La. 1996)). In Nungesser. the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court?s decision requiring the Commissioner of Insurance to provide data that did not exist in the speci?ed fomt. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Commissioner ?was not required to produce a list which did not exist and properly refused Nungesser's request.? 667 So.2d at 1037. Indeed. the enforcement provisions of La. R.S. 44:35 presuppose the existence of the records in the of?ce of the custodian. Revere v. Taylor. 613 So.2d 738 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993) Lewis v. Morrell. 2017 WL 1247926 (La. App. 4th Cir. April 5, 2017). Exhibit Lens v. Cannizzaro Charles Maldonado May 2. 2017 Page 3 Under the Public Records Law, a public of?cial is relieved of the obligation to make a public record available for inspection when doing so would be unreasonably burdensome or expensive. in this regard, LSA-R.S. 44:33 provides as follows: Availability of records A. (1) When a request is made for a public record to which the public is entitled. the of?cial. clerks of court and the custodian of notarial records in and for the parish of Orleans excepted, who has responsibility for the record shall have the record segregated from other records under his custody so that the public can reasonably view the record. (2) if, however, segregating the record would be unreasonably burdensome or expensive. or if the record requested is maintained in a fashion that makes it readily identi?able and renders further segregation unnecessary. the of?cial shall so state in writing and shall state the location of the requested record. it is well established that the examination of public records or requests for reproduction cannot be so burdensome as to interfere with the operation of the custodians constitutional and legal duties. Beckett v. Serpas, 112 So.3d 348, 353 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013); Vandemveghe v. Parish of Je?erson, 70 So.3d 51, 58 (La. App. 51h Cir. 2011), writ denied, 71 So.3d 289 (La. 2011); Elliott v. Dist. Attorney of Baton Rouge. 664 So.2d 122 (La. App. Cir. 1995), writ denied. 664 So.2d 440 (La. 1995). In the present case, the request for Subpoenas" delivered to witnesses is overly broad, particularly in light of the fact that the request involves a review of literally thousands of closed ?les, a substantial number of which are stored off-site. Therefore. compliance with your request would require that this Of?ce manually review thousands of ?les stored on premises and otT~site. the retrieval fee for which is $8.10 per file. Given the potential volume of the records that would have to be reviewed in order to respond to your request, the fact that the records cannot are not readily identi?able and locatable, and the retrieval costs involved, the District Attorney?s Of?ce submits that obtaining the records requested by you and preparing them for public review, including redacting and removing privileged information and documentation therefrom and determining whether there is a potential for further criminal litigation, would be unreasonably burdensome. Accordingly. your request is denied at this time. Exhibit Lens v. OJBZZEUUBO HQIUXEI Aamonv 1091ng ??imoq . (Li ?pw?mzns ?lrmwadsaa . 1; 98% opeuopmw 3:11qu