In the Matter of the Succession of Yvonne Edna Morris, 2019CA0562

Yvonne E. Morris died in 2016; granddaughter Heather M. Morris filed for possession claiming to be the only heir, but a 2009 notarial will left the estate to Sandra Dykes Watkins.
Heather amended to assert forced‑heirship based on an alleged inherited, incurable condition (pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor) that would render her permanently incapable.
Watkins served discovery seeking medical records and identification of treating physicians; Heather failed to timely and adequately respond.
The trial court granted Watkins’ motion to compel, ordered “sufficient” responses, and Heather’s supplemental responses remained evasive and produced no verifiable medical records.
With trial imminent, the court dismissed Heather’s forced‑heirship claims with prejudice under La. C.C.P. art. 1471 for failure to obey the discovery order. The First Circuit affirmed; Judge Chutz dissented, urging an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff fault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under La. C.C.P. art. 1471 was appropriate for failure to obey a discovery order	Heather: counsel supplemented responses and dismissal is a draconian sanction; fault lies with counsel, not client	Watkins: discovery responses were untimely, evasive, incomplete and prejudiced defense preparation; dismissal justified given imminent trial and prior court order	Affirmed. Court concluded sanction was within discretion; dismissal not an abuse given willfulness, prejudice, and that lesser sanctions would yield same result
Whether Heather’s discovery responses satisfied the court’s compelled order	Heather: provided responses Dec. 17 and Jan. 18 and offered additional material and depositions	Watkins: responses were evasive (legal objections, no medical records, no physician IDs), treated as failures to answer	Held: responses were evasive/incomplete and deemed failures to answer; obligation to produce medical documentation not met
Whether dismissal required evidence that the client (not only counsel) was at fault	Heather: record lacks proof of Heather’s personal willful disobedience; dismissal should be reserved when client is culpable	Watkins: focus on prejudice and failure to comply with court order; dismissal permissible under art. 1471 given facts	Majority: affirmed dismissal without remanding for client‑fault inquiry; Dissent (Chutz): would remand for evidentiary hearing to determine client fault before dismissal

Horton v. McCary, 635 So.2d 199 (La. 1994) (sets factors and cautions that dismissal is a draconian discovery sanction)
Hutchinson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 886 So.2d 438 (La. 2004) (trial court has broad discretion on discovery sanctions; reversal only for abuse)
BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, L.L.C., 155 So.3d 614 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (distinguishes sanctions available for discovery requests vs. disobedience of court‑ordered discovery)
Lirette v. Babin Farm, Inc., 843 So.2d 1141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003) (dismissal reserved for most culpable conduct; affects property rights)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker, 168 So.3d 421 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (severe sanctions may be necessary to deter discovery noncompliance)
In re Medical Review Panel, 775 So.2d 1214 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (dismissal requires record evidence of plaintiff’s, not just counsel’s, fault)