An attorney asserting the privilege has an evidentiary responsibility to establish the nature and association of the charged expenditure with the pending litigation."Bixenman v. Radlauer, 647 So.2d 565, 567 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added); accord Ragas v. Ragas, 690 So.2d 1112, 1115 (La.App. 4th Cir.),vacated on other grounds, 701 So.2d 140 (La. 1997);see also Ragas, 701 So.2d at 140 (remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine which advances qualified as "court costs" and "expenses of litigation");Dupuis, 609 So.2d at 1193 (plaintiff's testimony established necessity of advances for living and medical expenses). "The relevant inquiry in an attorney privilege determination is whether the expense reasonably relates to the litigation.
Rather, Defendants make two assertions: First, that the Court was unaware of, or gave inadequate attention to, the risk of a final judgment after appeal in the state court that would be inconsistent with this Court's judgment. Second, that the Court was unaware of, or erred in disregarding, the case of Ragas v. Ragas, 690 So. 2d 1112 (La.App. 1997), vacated and set aside, 701 So. 2d 140 (La. 1997). These assertions are groundless.