Southern Aggregates, LLC v. Arnold Baker & Baker Ready Mix, LLC, 294 So.3d 1076

Southern Aggregate sued to enforce a prior consent judgment against Arnold Baker and Baker Ready Mix; discovery followed.
Southern Aggregate served discovery (May 15, 2018); Baker did not timely respond; trial court granted a motion to compel (Sept. 13, 2018) and assessed $500 in attorney’s fees.
Southern Aggregate filed a contempt motion (Oct. 2, 2018); Baker produced 5,657 pages and paid the $500 (Oct. 23, 2018) and later formal responses (Jan. 15, 2019).
The trial court found Baker in contempt (Jan. 28, 2019), ordered full discovery compliance within 30 days, taxed costs, and awarded $500 in attorney’s fees.
After further inadequate supplementation and additional orders (Apr. 5, 2019 giving a May 6 deadline), Southern Aggregate filed another contempt motion (May 7, 2019); Baker filed an exception of prematurity arguing a La. Dist. Ct. Rule 10.1 conference was required.
The trial court (June 3, 2019) denied the exception, found Baker in contempt for willful noncompliance, and struck all of his defenses under La. C.C.P. art. 1471. Appeal followed; the court of appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. Dist. Ct. Rule 10.1 conference was required before filing a motion for contempt (prematurity).	Rule 10.1 applies only to motions to compel; it does not govern contempt motions.	Art. 1471 is a discovery article, so Rule 10.1 conference is mandatory before filing any discovery-related contempt motion.	Rule 10.1 governs motions to compel, not contempt motions; exception of prematurity denied.
Whether the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding Baker in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders.	Baker repeatedly failed to provide full, timely responses despite multiple court orders and opportunities; noncompliance was willful.	Baker produced large document sets and later answers; temporary or delayed compliance does not justify contempt/sanctions.	Court affirmed contempt: record supports willful, unjustified noncompliance; not manifestly erroneous.
Whether striking Baker’s defenses under La. C.C.P. art. 1471 was an abuse of discretion.	Striking defenses is an available, appropriate remedy for failure to obey a court-ordered discovery mandate.	Striking defenses was excessive given Baker’s production of documents and partial compliance.	Sanctions under art. 1471 (including striking defenses) are authorized for disobedience of court discovery orders; court did not abuse its discretion.

State through Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. Child Support Enf’t v. Knapp, 216 So.3d 130 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and willful disobedience requirement for contempt).
Joseph v. Entergy, 918 So.2d 47 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (definitions and distinctions between direct and constructive contempt).
Raspanti v. Litchfield, 946 So.2d 234 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2006) (trial-court discretion in imposing discovery sanctions).
MTU N. Am., Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc., 475 So.2d 1063 (La. 1985) (distinguishing sanctions for party-initiated discovery failures versus failure to obey court orders).
Burst v. Schmolke, 62 So.3d 829 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011) (willful disobedience standard cited).
Cambrie Celeste LLC v. Starboard Mgmt., LLC, 231 So.3d 79 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2017) (La. C.C.P. art. 1471 sanctions applicable for failure to comply with court discovery orders).