Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

In Louisiana, “articles 1422–1425 of the Code of Civil Procedure define the scope of permissible discovery and are applicable to all discovery devices.” (See Gotte v. Barnes Pers. Mgmt., Inc. (2014) 133 So. 3d 1274, 1280; Adams v. Deaton, Inc. (1997) 694 So. 2d 482, 486.)

“Generally, the articles permit discovery regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the action. Consequently, the initial inquiry in most discovery problems is whether the matter sought to be discovered is relevant.” (See id.)

“In Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 433 So.2d 125, 129 (La.1983) the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the objectives of the discovery provisions in Louisiana which are based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (See Gotte v. Barnes Pers. Mgmt., Inc. (2014) 133 So. 3d 1274, 1279.)

“The basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are:

1. to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation;
2. to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found;
3. to assist litigants in preparing their cases for trial;
4. to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties; and
5. to facilitate and expedite the legal process by encouraging settlement or abandonment of less than meritorious claims.”

(See Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. (1983) 433 So.2d 125, 129; Adams v. CSX Railroads (2005) 904 So. 2d 13, 15.)

“Further, the discovery statutes are to be liberally and broadly construed to achieve their intended objectives.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

A motion for order compelling discovery is governed under section 1469 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

“A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:

(1) An application for an order to a party or a deponent who is not a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending.

(2) If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Articles 1437 or 1448, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Articles 1442 or 1448, or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Article 1457, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Article 1461, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before he applies for an order.

If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to Article 1426.

(3) For purposes of this Subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.

(4) If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

If the motion is denied, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the moving party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.

(5) An application for an order compelling discovery to a member or former member of the legislature in his capacity as a state lawmaker, or a legislative employee in his official capacity, when the legislature or either body thereof is not a party to the proceeding may be made to the court in which the action is pending, but no order compelling discovery shall issue except in strict conformity with the provisions of R.S. 13:3667.3(C). For purposes of this Article 'legislative employee' means the clerk of the House of Representatives, the secretary of the Senate, or an employee of the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the Legislative Bureau.”

(See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1469.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“It is well established that trial courts in Louisiana have broad discretion in regulating pretrial discovery, which discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.” (See Adams v. CSX Railroads (2005) 904 So. 2d 13, 15.)

“Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner.” (See Sullivan v. Brookshire Grocery Co. & Sealy Uptown, LLC (2022) 348 So. 3d 872, 875.)

“The word ‘arbitrary’ implies a disregard of evidence or the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is ‘capricious’ when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.” (See id.)

“Although a reviewing court defers to reasonable decisions within the trial court's discretion, a decision based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, is not entitled to such deference.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

In Moak v. Ill Cent. R.R. Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the basic objectives of the discovery process are to allow parties to obtain pertinent facts; to discover true facts and compel their disclosure; to assist in trial preparation; to narrow and clarify the issues; and to encourage settlement or abandonment of claims lacking merit. These objectives can be met by requesting the production and inspection of documents and tangible things within the scope of discovery and in the possession of an opposing party. Since courts are to construe discovery statutes liberally and broadly, including those provisions addressing the scope of discovery, any relevant unprivileged information, whether or not admissible at trial and whether documents or tangible things, is discoverable.” (See In re Marriage of Kuntz (2008) 998 So. 2d 120, 124; Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad (1994) 631 So. 2d 401, 406.)

As such, it is well settled that “the discovery articles grant the trial court the power to compel discovery and the discretion to impose various sanctions on a party or his attorney for unjustified failure to comply with the statutory scheme or to obey an order compelling discovery.” (See Reich, Album & Plunkett, L.L.C. v. Mugnier (2021) 334 So. 3d 986, 989.)