Court Opinion

ID: 9893344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 17:10:31.260935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:35.226099
License: Public Domain

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