246 So. 3d 23
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Violet Dock owned a 75-acre private port; Joseph Ruppel (former minority owner) and Chaffe & Associates prepared a May 31, 2009 valuation report (Chaffe Report). St. Bernard Port expropriated the property and sought just compensation.
- During the just-compensation trial, St. Bernard Port subpoenaed non-parties Ruppel and Chaffe for the Chaffe Report; Ruppel/Chaffe moved to quash asserting privilege and confidentiality.
- Trial court ordered production; this court reversed in an earlier appeal, finding the subpoenas irrelevant and quashing them, and remanded for consideration of costs to Ruppel/Chaffe.
- Ruppel/Chaffe moved for costs (seeking >$376,000). St. Bernard Port then served discovery on Ruppel/Chaffe seeking underlying communications referenced in billing invoices supporting the fee motion.
- Trial court (May 31, 2016) ordered Ruppel/Chaffe to produce communications to Violet Dock about defending the subpoenas; later (Dec. 27, 2016) granted partial new trial expanding production; Ruppel/Chaffe and Violet Dock appealed/writ.
- The appellate court reversed both judgments, held the trial court abused its discretion by denying a protective order, and remanded with instructions to enter a protective order and consider awarding fees to Ruppel/Chaffe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly ordered production of underlying communications referenced in billing invoices supporting non-parties’ motion for costs | St. Bernard Port: needs underlying communications to verify that billed work relates to quashing subpoenas and to test reasonableness of claimed fees | Ruppel/Chaffe & Violet Dock: production is privileged, overbroad, unduly burdensome (≈25,000 pages), and unnecessary because invoices, expert reports, and depositions suffice | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; discovery as ordered was unduly burdensome and unnecessary; protective order should limit discovery and alternative methods (depositions, expert review) are adequate |
| Whether a protective order should issue under La. C.C.P. art. 1426 to avoid undue burden/expense | St. Bernard Port: limited production is necessary; deposition of billing attorneys insufficient without documents | Ruppel/Chaffe: art. 1426 allows protection from oppression; wholesale review/production is unduly burdensome and less intrusive means exist | Court: grant protective order; limit discovery methods and avoid wholesale production/in‑camera review unless necessary |
| Whether production of the communications was required despite asserted privileges (attorney-client, common-interest, work product) | St. Bernard Port: privilege waived/overcome as to documents needed to assess fee reasonableness | Ruppel/Chaffe: communications privileged and were prepared in anticipation of litigation; privilege not waived | Court pretermits detailed ruling on privilege but emphasizes protective order because burden of producing and logging privileged material is unnecessary given alternatives; remands for protective order and fees consideration |
| Whether Ruppel/Chaffe should be awarded attorney’s fees/costs for quashing subpoenas | Ruppel/Chaffe: prevailing on quash entitles them to reasonable fees under discovery statutes | St. Bernard Port: opposed to broad fee award without proof billing relates to quash defense | Court: remands to trial court to decide fees/costs in light of appellate ruling (trial court initially silent) |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Violet Dock, Inc., 147 So.3d 1266 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (prior reversal of trial court quash-denial and remand for costs)
- Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assurance Consultants, Inc., 819 So.2d 287 (La. 2002) (discovery statutes construed liberally but protective relief available to prevent undue burden)
- Channelside Servs., LLC v. Chrysochoos Group, Inc., 194 So.3d 751 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (third-party discovery requires relevancy and necessity before ordering)
- Levy v. Maloney, 652 So.2d 522 (La. 1995) (trial court should protect against oppressive subpoenas; look to less intrusive methods)
- Board of Supervisors of La. State Univ. v. Boudreaux's Tire & Auto Repair, L.L.C., 133 So.3d 1262 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (in camera review reasonable in fee disputes)
- Fuge v. Uiterwyk, 709 So.2d 357 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (billing attorneys may testify to reasonableness of fees by reviewing invoices)
- Succession of Smith, 513 So.2d 1138 (La. 1987) (privilege and waiver analysis in discovery context)