147 So. 3d 1266
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- St. Bernard Port filed an expropriation petition in Dec. 2010 seeking to acquire Violet Dock Port property under La. Rev. Stat. 34:1708.
- During the 2013 valuation trial, it learned of Ruppel's 2009 sale of his Violet Dock Port interest and a Chaffe & Associates valuation report prepared for tax/estate planning.
- St. Bernard Port issued subpoenas to Ruppel, Chaffe & Associates, and Vanessa Claiborne (Chaffe’s agent) seeking trial appearance and production of the May 2009 Chaffe Report.
- Ruppel and Chaffe moved to quash, seek protective orders, and for costs, arguing the Chaffe Report was privileged, confidential, or non-relevant to expropriation value.
- The trial court granted production against the non-parties; it did not issue reasons; Ruppel and Chaffe appeal, arguing lack of relevancy/good cause and privilege.
- Appellate court reverses and remands, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to show relevancy and good cause for non-party discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Chaffe Report discoverable from non-parties? | Chaffe Report is relevant and necessary to value the property. | Report is not relevant; may be privileged/confidential and prepared for non-party. | Abuse of discretion; not shown relevancy or good cause; not discoverable. |
| Does accountant-client privilege apply to the Chaffe Report? | Report not protected since third-party and intended for third-party disclosure. | Report may be privileged under CAE articles 515/517. | Not reached; court reverses on relevancy/good-cause and remands. |
| Should the non-party discovery ruling affect the allocation of costs on appeal? | Costs should reflect the denial of discovery against non-parties. | Costs not properly addressed in the judgment. | Remand for trial court to consider costs consistent with reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sercovich v. Sercovich, 96 So.3d 600 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (deference to trial court on discovery rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
- Stolzle v. Safety & Systems Assurance Consultants, Inc., 819 So.2d 287 (La. 5/24/2002) (relevancy and good cause required for non-party records)
- Ouachita National Bank v. Palowsky, 554 So.2d 108 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989) (non-party discovery requires relevancy)
- City of New Orleans v. Giraud, 346 So.2d 1113 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1977) (market value measure at date of taking)
- State v. Landry, 53 So.2d 908 (La. 1951) (market value date for expropriation)
- Larriviere v. Howard, 771 So.2d 747 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2000) (final appealable discovery order doctrine)
- R.J. Gallagher Co. v. Lent, Inc., 361 So.2d 1231 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1978) (contextual discovery principles)