Sercovich v. Sercovich, 96 So. 3d 600

Allied Towing Service, wholly owned by Mr. Sercovich, previously owned Bud’s Boat Rental, L.L.C. and Shipyard Service, L.L.C.; Allied allegedly sold its one-third interest in Bud’s and Shipyard to John Sercovich and Gary Sercovich, Jr. in 2009.
Ms. Sercovich filed for divorce from Mr. Sercovich on July 8, 2010, seeking interim and final spousal support.
On May 1, 2011, Ms. Sercovich issued a Notice of Records Only Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Bud’s and Shipyard seeking extensive financial documents.
Bud’s and Shipyard moved to quash the subpoena and sought protective orders arguing the documents are privileged, confidential, or irrelevant to the divorce and that there are less burdensome discovery methods.
The trial court denied the motion to quash (June 28, 2011) except for a protective order; documents were to be produced under protective order.
On August 25, 2011, the trial court denied Bud’s and Shipyard’s motion for new trial; the appellate court remanded for in-camera inspection to determine relevance of the documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the subpoena seeks discoverable financial records	Sercovich seeks income-related records to determine support; documents are relevant.	Documents are confidential third-party records and not sufficiently relevant to spousal support.	Overbroad but producible under in-camera review for relevance
Whether the trial court abused discretion in ordering production	Discovery should be liberally construed to obtain admissible evidence on income.	Trial court failed to narrowly tailor and protect third-party confidentiality.	Not an abuse; remanded for in-camera inspection to limit to relevant records
Whether in-camera inspection is appropriate to balance interests	In-camera review can reveal relevant documents while protecting confidential data.	Protective measures should suffice without broad disclosure.	Remanded for in-camera inspection

Stolzle v. Safety & Systems Assurance Consultants, Inc., 819 So.2d 287 (La. 2002) (appeals discovery relevance and reasonableness standards)
Lehmann v. American Southern Home Ins. Co., 615 So.2d 923 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993) (test for discoverability—information likely to lead to admissible evidence)
Wascom v. Wascom, 713 So.2d 1271 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1998) (means of discovery and relevance in suit for support)
Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 125 (La. 1983) (liberal construction of discovery statutes to obtain facts)
Wollerson v. Wollerson, 687 So.2d 663 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (balance discovery rights against third-party confidentiality)
Re Marriage of Kuntz, 929 So.2d 75 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (appellate review of discovery rulings and abuse of discretion)
Borrello v. Borrello, 614 So.2d 91 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) (tax returns and partnership relevance in discovery)