HENRY KINNEY v. AGENDA FOR CHILDREN INC (2026)

Relator-Plaintiff, Henry W. Kinney (“Relator”), seeks review of the trial court's March 5, 2026 judgment, which denied his petition for enforcement of public records requests. For the below stated reasons, we grant Relator's writ application for the sole purpose of remanding the matter with instructions to the trial court to consider Relator's notice of intent as a timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2026, Relator submitted a public records request to Respondent-Defendant, Agenda for Children, Inc. (“Respondent”) seeking the Respondent's engagement letter with Stone Pigman and the meeting minutes concerning the engagement of Stone Pigman. Respondent denied the records request on the grounds that they were not subject to disclosure under the Louisiana Public Records Law.

On February 9, 2026, Relator filed the instant lawsuit as a mandamus proceeding to enforce his rights under the Public Records Law. In the petition, Relator requested that after summary proceeding that the trial court order Respondent “to immediately turn over to Kinney ‘Agenda engagement letter with Stone Pigman’ and the ‘Agenda Board meeting minutes having to do with the engagement of Stone Pigman.’ ”

The matter came for hearing before the trial court on February 18, 2026. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On March 5, 2026, the trial court issued judgment with reasons, denying Relator's petition for enforcement of public records request. The judgment stated in part:

[T]he Court finds that the records at issue do not relate to Defendant's specific functions and duties under the CEA [Cooperative Endeavor Agreement].1 Plaintiff has requested the engagement letter and minutes regarding the engagement of Stone Pigman. At the hearing, Jennifer Roberts, the CEO of Agenda for Children, testified that Stone Pigman was retained to advise Defendant on its obligations under the Public Records Law. There is no evidence before this Court to suggest that the retention of Stone Pigman is related to Defendant's duties under the CEA.

․

[T]he evidence in the record establishes that the private funds were used to retain Stone Pigman. There has also been no connection between the engagement of Stone Pigman and Defendant's duties to provide early childhood education programs to the residents of New Orleans. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has established that the records at issue are not public records subject to disclosure.

ACCORDINGLY:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Henry Kinney's Petition for Enforcement of Public Records Requests is DENIED.

On March 20, 2026, Respondent filed its notice of intent to seek supervisory review of the trial court judgment. The trial court set April 2, 2026, as the return date to seek writs. Relator timely filed its writ application with this Court on April 2, 2026. Respondent filed its response on April 17, 2026.

DISCUSSION

An interlocutory judgment is a judgment “that does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the action.” La. C.C.P. art. 1841. A final judgment is one “that determines the merits in whole or in part.” Id.

La. C.C.P. art. 2083(A) provides “[a] final judgment is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law, whether rendered after hearing, by default, or by reformation under [La. C.C.P. art.] 1814.” “An interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law.” La. C.C.P. art. 2083(B).

In Toussaint v. Spears, 2025-0428 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/23/25), 417 So.3d 1220, the relator sought supervisory review of a judgment denying her motion to intervene. The Fourth Circuit found that the denial of a request to intervene was an appealable judgment and thus “an appeal was the proper method” to seek review of the trial court's judgment, “not an application for supervisory writ.” Id., at p. 5, 417 So.3d at 1224. As a result, the Fourth Circuit granted the writ application “for the limited purpose of remanding this matter to the trial court with instructions to grant [relator] an appeal” from the judgment at issue. Id., at p. 7, 417 So.3d at 1225.

Here, the trial court's judgment denying Relator's petition determined the merits as a whole. As such, the judgment that Relator seeks review is a final appealable judgment. Like in Toussaint, we therefore grant Relator's writ application for the sole purpose of remanding the matter with instructions to the trial court to consider Relator's March 20, 2026 notice of intent as a timely notice of appeal. See La. C.C.P. art. 2087.²

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find that judgment upon which Relator seeks supervisory review is a final judgment. We thus granted the writ application for the limited purpose of remanding this matter to the trial court to consider the notice of intent to seek supervisory review as a timely motion for appeal.

WRIT GRANTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE; REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record provides that City entered into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with Respondent and the Orleans Parish School Board to provide children with access to early childhood education programs

2.   The notice of intent was filed before the 60-day period for taking a devolutive appeal and was thus filed within the delays provided by in La. C.C.P. art. 2087.

Judge Karen K. Herman

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT