Theodore J. Phillips VS Ganaway's #5 Convenience Store

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1932 THEODORE G 7 PHILLIPS VERSUS S GANAWAY 5 CONVENIENCE STORE Judgment Rendered MAY 7 2010 On Appeal from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Mary State of Louisiana Docket No 120 282 Honorable Keith Comeaux Judge Presiding Theodore J Phillips PlaintiffAppellant Angola Louisiana In Proper Person Frank J Judycki Morgan City Louisiana Counsel for DefendantsAppellees s Ganaway 5 Convenience Store Inc Verna Ganaway Pam Ganaway BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ MCCLENDON Theodore J Phillips appeals a judgment that dismissed his petition for failure to state a cause of action For the reasons that follow we affirm Phillips asserts that on March 9 2004 he was found guilty of armed robbery of Ganaway 5 Convenience Store employees and armed robbery with the use of a firearm On June 10 2009 Phillips filed a petition naming s Ganaway 5 Convenience Store Ganaway and its owners Pam and Verna s Ganaway as defendants Therein Phillips alleged that he had previously requested public records pertaining to the surveillance video system in store 5 and that defendants failed to answer the requests Phillips prayed for damages arising from defendants negligence in failing to provide the items requested In connection with his petition Phillips also filed interrogatories requests for production of documents and requests for admissions all of which pertained to Ganaway surveillance video system s On July 2 2009 the defendants filed a Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action asserting that Ganaway swas not subject to the Public Records Law LSAR 44 et seq and as such Phillips had failed to state a cause of action S 1 against the defendants Following a hearing the trial court found that s Ganaway was not subject to a public records request and dismissed Phillips suit Phillips has appealed asserting that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the defendants exception of no cause of action and in denying his request for public records pursuant to LSAR 44 et seq S1 DISCUSSION Despite Phillips contention that the trial court failed to rule on the defendants exception of no cause of action the record clearly reflects otherwise We note that the purpose of the hearing was to address the defendants exception of no cause of action and prior to ruling the trial judge indicated I m going to go ahead and grant the Exception of No Cause of Action Moreover the written judgment signed by the trial court reflected the matter was being 2 dismissed following a hearing on the Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action Accordingly this assignment of error is without merit Phillips also contends that the trial court erred by denying him access to public records from Ganaway Although Phillips does not indicate the purpose s he seeks the requested materials Phillips maintains that he is entitled to the surveillance video system records and materials because Ganaway is a Public s Body under the Public Records Law See LSAR 44 etseq S 1 We disagree Louisiana Revised Statutes 44 defines public body A 1 as follows 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 government including a public or quasi public nonprofit corporation designated as an entity to perform a governmental or proprietary function A plain reading of Phillips petition and discovery in connection therewith show that he had requested materials from a convenience store and its employees Phillips has not sued or requested records from a public body within the meaning of LSAR 44 Furthermore even if Phillips were seeking S 1 A materials from a public body we note that much of the information sought may otherwise be protected See LSAR 44 S1 b 2 A In light of the foregoing we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting defendants exception of no cause of action Therefore we affirm the judgment of the trial court and assess costs of this appeal against Theodore J Phillips AFFIRMED Moreover although Phillips asserts that defendants are subject to the Public Records Law through LSA R 47 All records of the corporation shall be deemed public records and S 9006 we note that subject to public inspection as provided by the provisions of R 44 et seq S 1 the corporation referred to therein is the Louisiana Lottery Corporation See LSA R 47 S 9003 Z Louisiana Revised Statutes 44 provides b 2 A 1 Notwithstanding Subparagraph a any documentary material of a security feature of a public body electronic data processing system information s technology system telecommunications network or electronic security system including hardware or software security password or security process configuration software and code is not a public record 3 procedure

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.