164 So. 3d 359
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Harriet Fox subpoenaed documents in a divorce-related discovery request from I.C.C.D. Fox, LLC (Fox, LLC), a family-owned LLC, seeking bank records, tenant lists, rent income, checks, and handwritten payment notes.
- Fox, LLC moved to quash and sought a protective order claiming trade secrets/confidential commercial information; the trial court denied relief and ordered production; this court affirmed on appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied further stay.
- Fox, LLC failed to produce unredacted documents after the appeal; counsel instead provided redacted copies at a later hearing and proposed a limited protective order by email.
- At the hearing the trial court inspected the submitted (but redacted) documents, requested unredacted originals for in camera review, and when Fox, LLC failed to produce them, denied the protective order, granted Harriet’s motion to compel, awarded $1,824 in attorney fees, and found Fox, LLC in contempt, imposing a $10,000 fine.
- On appeal Fox, LLC challenged (1) denial of a protective order without full in camera review, (2) contempt finding for failure to produce, and (3) the amount and allocation of fines and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective order / in camera inspection | Harriet: documents are discoverable and redactions improper; unredacted review required | Fox, LLC: court should accept redacted submissions and grant protective order to shield trade secrets | Court required unredacted documents for meaningful in camera review; Fox, LLC’s failure to produce them justified denial of protective order |
| Trade secret status of documents | Harriet: bank/tenant/rental income not trade secrets and are relevant to divorce discovery | Fox, LLC: rental income, tenant info, bank numbers are confidential trade secrets warranting protection | Court: Fox, LLC failed to show a legally protectable trade secret; denial of protective order affirmed |
| Contempt for nonproduction | Harriet: continued withholding after appeals and writ denial was willful disobedience | Fox, LLC: stay remained or no express post-stay order requiring production by a date certain | Court: appellate opinion and supreme court denial lifted the stay; Fox, LLC knowingly disobeyed and contempt finding upheld |
| Fines and attorney fees | Harriet: sanctions and fees appropriate for noncompliance; sought daily sanction | Fox, LLC: $10,000 exceeds statutory contempt limit; attorney fees improper as contempt punishment | Court upheld fees (as discovery-motion sanction) and fines for daily contempt but amended judgment to make fine payable to the court rather than to Harriet |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 775 So.2d 649 (La. Ct. App. 2000) (discretionary review of protective orders)
- United Group of Nat. Paper Distributors, Inc. v. Vinson, 666 So.2d 1338 (La. Ct. App. 1996) (threshold inquiry for trade-secret protection)
- Wyatt v. P02, Inc., 651 So.2d 359 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (trade-secret determination is factual)
- Pontchartrain Medical Labs, Inc. v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 677 So.2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 1996) (customer lists/pricing may be protectable if secrecy maintained)
- Dauphine v. Carencro High School, 843 So.2d 1096 (La. 2003) (standards for willful disobedience and criminal contempt review)
- City of Kenner v. Jumonville, 701 So.2d 223 (La. Ct. App. 1997) (daily accrual of contempt fines upheld)