Frey v. Amoco Production Co., Civ. A. No. 88-1622.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | William S. Strain, Frederick W. Ellis, David M. Ellison, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs |
| Citation | 741 F. Supp. 601 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 88-1622. |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1990 |
| Parties | Frederick J. FREY, et al. v. AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY. |
741 F. Supp. 601
Frederick J. FREY, et al.
v.
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY.
Civ. A. No. 88-1622.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
July 6, 1990.
William S. Strain, Frederick W. Ellis, David M. Ellison, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs.
Frank J. Peragine, Clyde Mote, New Orleans, La., for defendant.
ROBERT F. COLLINS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, Frederick J. Frey, et al., move the Court for final judgment against defendant, Amoco Production Company (Amoco). Plaintiffs seek a judgment finding that Amoco: (1) is subject to the Louisiana Public Records Law, La.R.S. 44:1 et seq; and (2) had a duty to provide Frey with a full accounting prior to this lawsuit. For the reasons given below, the Motion is DENIED.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial proceedings in this case were concluded on April 16, 1990 with the parties entering into the following stipulations:
(a) The parties reached a compromise settlement of plaintiffs' claim for alleged incorrect calculation of royalties covering the period April 18, 1985 through November 30, 1988. The incorrect calculation claim was the only monetary claim remaining in the case after the Court granted defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal following the close of plaintiffs' case in chief on March 6, 1990; and
(b) Plaintiffs' contention, that Amoco is subject to the Louisiana Public Records Act by virtue of its having been designated operator of the five gas units involved in this suit, was submitted to the Court for decision based on the briefs and documentary evidence introduced at trial; and
(c) Each side would bear its own costs.
Accordingly, the only remaining issues are whether Amoco is subject to the Louisiana Public Records Act and whether Amoco owed Frey a full accounting prior to this lawsuit.
II. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
The purpose of the Public Records Act is to foster "the inherent right of the public to be reasonably informed as to the manner, basis, and reasons upon which government affairs are conducted," Trahan v. Larivee, 365 So.2d 294, 298 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1978), writ denied, 366 So.2d 564 (La.1979) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs argue that all of Amoco's business records should be subject to the public records statute for two reasons: (1) because Amoco is licensed by the state as a unit operator; and (2) because Amoco collects severance taxes on the minerals which are produced from the various units in which plaintiffs own an interest.
With respect to the first contention, plaintiffs' argument is that Amoco, as unit operator, is a "quasi-public official or agency" performing a governmental function of conservation. Amoco is a company that owns a working interest in units in the Morganza Field. It does so in a private capacity like other working interest owners. Its rights and obligations, vis-a-vis the other working interest owners, are governed by private contract, usually a joint operating agreement. In this case, there is no joint operating agreement. In the absence of a joint operating agreement, case law, rather than state statute, controls the working interest relationship. No rational distinction can be drawn between Amoco, as unit operator, and the other working interest owners for purposes of applying the Public Records Act.
Next, plaintiffs argue that because Amoco, pursuant to statute, collects severance taxes on the minerals which it produces, all of Amoco's records are subject to open disclosure under the Public Records Act's provision concerning receipt or payment of money by or under the authority of the constitution or the laws of the state. If this were the established interpretation of the Public Records statute, then all the business records of every retailer who collects state sales tax would also be public records. The Court finds that the fact that Amoco was named unit operator does not change its status.
The only reported Louisiana case in which a private corporation has been held to be subject to the Louisiana Public Records Act is Lewis v. Spurney, 456 So.2d 206 (La.App. 4th Cir.) writ denied, 457 So.2d 1183 and 458 So.2d 488. In that case, a non-profit corporation, the Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., had received $25 million under two state appropriations. The Court held that records of receipts and disbursement of those funds were deemed
A reading of the definitions sections of La.R.S. 44:1 reveals that the legislature never intended for this statute to be used as a discovery tool by private litigants against a private corporation:
A. (1) As used in this Chapter, the phrase "public body" means any branch, department, office, agency, board, commission, district, governing authority, political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, advisory board, or task force thereof, or any other instrumentality of state, parish, or municipal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railway Labor Exec. v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry., Civ. A. No. 90-0597-A.
...265, 268-69 (7th Cir.1985); Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 644 F.2d 690, 695 (8th Cir.1981); Davis v. Piper 741 F. Supp. 601 Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 25, 65 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1980). But denial of leave to amen......
-
Frey v. Amoco Production Co., No. 90-3553
...denied Frey's request for a declaratory judgment that Amoco is subject to Louisiana's Public Records Act. Frey v. Amoco Production Co., 741 F.Supp. 601, 603 (E.D.La.1990). Frey challenges these three II. DISCUSSION A. ROYALTY ON TAKE-OR-PAY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS The terms of a Louisiana miner......
-
Fairfield Energy Corp. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-757
...2011). The period begins to run when the plaintiff reasonably should have known of the underpayment. See Frey v. Amoco Production Co., 741 F. Supp. 601, 586-87 (E.D. La. 1990). Here, the financial disclosures would not have placed a reasonable person on notice. In Frey, the court noted that......
-
Railway Labor Exec. v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry., Civ. A. No. 90-0597-A.
...265, 268-69 (7th Cir.1985); Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 644 F.2d 690, 695 (8th Cir.1981); Davis v. Piper 741 F. Supp. 601 Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 25, 65 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1980). But denial of leave to amen......
-
Frey v. Amoco Production Co., No. 90-3553
...denied Frey's request for a declaratory judgment that Amoco is subject to Louisiana's Public Records Act. Frey v. Amoco Production Co., 741 F.Supp. 601, 603 (E.D.La.1990). Frey challenges these three II. DISCUSSION A. ROYALTY ON TAKE-OR-PAY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS The terms of a Louisiana miner......
-
Fairfield Energy Corp. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-757
...2011). The period begins to run when the plaintiff reasonably should have known of the underpayment. See Frey v. Amoco Production Co., 741 F. Supp. 601, 586-87 (E.D. La. 1990). Here, the financial disclosures would not have placed a reasonable person on notice. In Frey, the court noted that......