BATON ROUGE — The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that LSU must turn over a song bird researcher's records that an animal rights group has been trying to obtain from the university for years.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has sought records related to Christine Lattin's research since 2019. At various times, LSU has said it had no pertinent records, or that the records PETA sought were not covered by Louisiana's public records law. 

In a 4-3 vote, the justices said the university had to turn over the records, including videos.

"The Public Records Law must be construed expansively in favor of free and unrestricted access to public documents," the majority wrote.

LSU said it was looking into possible next steps.

"We are reviewing the opinion and evaluating the impact on our proprietary research. We will determine what we need to do in due course after our review and analysis," a statement from spokeswoman Abbi Rocha Laymoun said.

 The animal rights group said it was pleased with the ruling.

"PETA is elated that the Supreme Court of Louisiana is requiring LSU to abide by the law — and now it must finally release video footage and documents detailing the school’s cruel and deadly experiments on songbirds," senior vice president Kathy Guillermo said. "These birds were trapped in their own homes, caged, tormented, and killed at a public university that can’t operate in secrecy, hiding atrocities masquerading as 'science.'"

PETA has targeted Lattin for years, beginning when she was at Yale studying stress in sparrows. PETA says she torments the birds after capturing them.

LSU claimed that some of the documents PETA sought were governed by federal law, not Louisiana law, and therefore not subject to disclosure. The court found that since LSU funds were used to conduct research, the documents produced should be considered open records.

PETA also sought, but LSU had denied access to, records showing Lattin had used personal devices to lobby Baton Rouge officials to change its wild bird ordinance in an effort to further her research.

"The fact that a public employee used a private email account or private cell phone, or even a private attorney(,) to conduct business does not make public records 'private,'" the Supreme Court wrote, citing a lower court judge.