Opinion
No. 2023-CC-00567
06-21-2023
Lesley ENGLAND and Sandi England, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. DUDLEY DEBOSIER, APLC
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crain, J., concurs.
Crichton, J., recused.
Crichton, J. recused.
Plaintiffs filed the instant legal malpractice suit against defendants, Dudley DeBosier, APLC, Dudley DeBosier Risk Management, LLC, Dudley DeBosier Consulting, LLC, and Racheal Bellemin. During discovery, plaintiffs issued a corporate deposition notice to defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to quash and motion for protective order asserting that some of the requests were irrelevant or overbroad. The district court denied the motion and imposed sanctions against defendants. Defendants applied for supervisory relief, which the court of appeal denied. Defendants now seek relief in this court.
A party generally may obtain discovery of any information which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1422. There are limitations to this rule, however, when justice requires that a party or other person be protected from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426 ; Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assur. Consultants, Inc ., 2002-1197 (La. 5/24/02), 819 So. 2d 287, 289.
A review of the discovery requests in this case indicate they have little relevance to the underlying dispute and will only serve to place an undue burden on defendants. For example, one of the requests asks defendants to "[e]xplain how Texas Law and Louisiana Law are different and how those differences affected the underlying cause(s) of action...." Such an inquiry may be addressed through expert testimony, but is not a proper subject for discovery. Another request asks about disciplinary complaints filed against the firm and its employees. In addition to being irrelevant, this request may potentially intrude on information which is confidential by operations of Supreme Court, Rule XIX, § 16.
Having reviewed the information contained in the application, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash and motion for protective order. Based on our determination that the motions are meritorious, we further find the district court erred in imposing sanctions. These rulings must be reversed.
Plaintiffs had an opportunity to file an opposition to the application pursuant to Supreme Court Rule X, § 6, but elected not to do so.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The judgment of the district court denying the motion to quash and motion for protective order filed by Dudley DeBosier, APLC, Dudley DeBosier Risk Management, LLC, Dudley DeBosier Consulting, LLC, and Racheal Bellemin and imposing sanctions against these defendants is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court to enter judgment quashing those discovery requests identified in the motion and to grant an appropriate protective order pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426.