248 So. 3d 498
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Carroll Collins Dabezies (plaintiff/relator) and her deceased husband formerly owned the family home at 6016 St. Charles Ave; upon his death Carroll received a lifetime usufruct and the five children received divided ownership interests.
- Carroll executed a broad procuration in 2004 appointing co-mandataries; she was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and placed in a care facility.
- Carroll (through co-mandataries) filed a judicial partition action after family members could not agree on selling the home.
- Defendants (Carroll’s daughters) served discovery seeking financial records, property contents, appraisals, and extensive personal financial statements; plaintiffs objected and sought supervisory review after the trial court granted a motion to compel.
- The appellate panel reviewed relevance under La. C.C.P. art. 1422 and the broader discovery standard vs. trial admissibility, and considered whether requested materials were pertinent to partition and property maintenance/value versus unrelated separate-property management under the procuration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requests for property-related information (contents list, recent appraisals, maintenance cost/accountings, reimbursements from occupants) are discoverable | Such requests are relevant to partition, valuation, and maintenance costs | Necessary to value property and allocate costs; relevant to partition | Court: Denied writ as to these requests — they are discoverable and may lead to admissible evidence |
| Whether broad personal financial account records (bank, IRA, credit card, private investments) are discoverable | These are overbroad and unrelated to partition; concern they seek separate-property/mandatary management info | Sought to show sources/uses related to property maintenance or proceeds | Court: Granted writ as to these requests — they are not shown relevant to partition and trial court abused discretion ordering them |
| Whether statements for accounts identified in interrogatory responses are discoverable | Overly broad and seek unrelated separate-property records | Relevant if tied to property expenses or proceeds | Court: Granted writ for blanket production of all such account statements; not sufficiently shown relevant |
| Whether accounting of co-mandataries’ overall management under procuration is discoverable | Management accounting concerns separate-property administration, beyond partition scope | May reveal expenditures or mismanagement affecting property value | Court: Granted writ as to a full accounting of co-mandataries’ management (as overly broad); limited discovery may still seek property-specific expense records |
Key Cases Cited
- Sercovich v. Sercovich, 96 So.3d 600 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (trial court has broad discretion in discovery matters)
- Favrot v. Favrot, 115 So.3d 1190 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review requires balancing relevance and hardship)
- Indus. Pipe, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Council, 100 So.3d 896 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (discoverability test: feasibility and whether response will expedite litigation)
- Sullivan v. Malta Park, 156 So.3d 751 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (distinguishes categories: admissible evidence, discoverable evidence, neither)
- State ex rel. Ieyoub v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 790 So.2d 673 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001) (burden on movant to prove relevancy of discovery sought)