Thad R. Smith v. Leslie D. SMith ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                   STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    THAD R. SMITH                                  NO.   2023 CW 0711
    VERSUS
    LESLIE D. SMITH                              OCTOBER 25, 2023
    In Re:     Leslie D.   Smith, applying for supervisory writs,
    Family Court in and for the Parish of East Baton
    Rouge, No. 210379.
    BEFORE:    McCLENDON, WELCH, THERIOT, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
    WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER.       The portions of the district
    court's July 13,     2023 judgment that decreed any discovery
    requests seeking information or documentation in the control of
    Thad R. Smith after the termination of the community regime on
    December 15,    2020 to be irrelevant for the purposes of
    discovery, finding his responses to requests for production of
    documents satisfactory for this reason and denying the motion to
    compel discovery filed by Leslie D. Smith as to these requests,
    are reversed. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,
    not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved
    in the pending action.   La. Code Civ. P. art. 1422.   The test of
    discoverability   is   whether  the    information sought  appears
    reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
    evidence. Lehmann v. American Southern Home Ins. Co., 
    615 So.2d 923
    , 925 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 
    617 So.2d 913
     (La.
    1993). We find the information sought by Leslie D. Smith in her
    Second Set of Requests for Production is relevant and subject to
    discovery.   The motion to compel is granted as to such
    requests.   This matter is remanded to the district court to
    provide a reasonable time within which Thad R. Smith must
    respond to these discovery requests and to consider Leslie
    Smith's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs in
    accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1469(4).
    PMc
    JEW
    MRT
    SMM
    Hester, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.  I agree
    that Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and
    13 of Ms. Smith's Second Set of Requests for Production of
    Documents to Mr. Smith are relevant and subject to discovery.
    Accordingly,  I   would grant Ms.    Smith's motion to compel
    responses to these discovery requests and remand the matter for
    consideration of Ms. Smith's request for attorney's fees and
    costs.   However, I would deny Ms. Smith's motion as to the
    remaining requests.
    a,..o
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
    FOR THE COURT
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023CW0711

Filed Date: 10/25/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/26/2023