Court Opinion

ID: 9407177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 21:08:09.512762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:35.865036
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TROY LILLIE,             ET AL.                                                   NO.     2023 CW 0521

VERSUS

STANFORD TRUST             COMPANY,
STATE      OF LOUISIANA,              OFFICE
OF    FINANCIAL          INSTITUTIONS,                                                  JULY     5,    2023
AND     SEI     INVESTMENTS           COMPANY

In Re:             State       of     Louisiana          through          the    Louisiana        Office       of
                   Financial            Institutions,                applying        for        supervisory
                   writs,       19th       Judicial        District         Court,       Parish       of     East
                   Baton Rouge,            No.    581670.

BEFORE:            HOLDRIDGE,          CHUTZ,      AND    PENZATO,         JJ.

        WRIT       GRANTED.           We   find the trial court erred in the portion
of its April 25,                2023       order that granted the plaintiffs'                          request
for     discovery          under       La.    R.S.       6:103(H).          At    the    April        19,    2023
hearing,           the     plaintiffs             failed      to     introduce       any     evidence          in
support         of   their       request          for   discovery.              Evidence    not       properly
and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered,                                                  even
if    it    is     physically          placed       in     the      record.       Landis       Const.        Co.,
L.L.C.        v.     State,          2015-1167 (        La.      App.      1st    Cir.     2/29/16),          199
So. 3d     1,      2-3.        The    plaintiffs'          request         for    discovery       under       La.
R. S.      6: 103 (H)      also        did    not       adequately         describe        the    documents
being         sought       and        therefore          fails       to     comply       with     La.        R.S.
6: 103 (H).           Therefore,             we    find       the    plaintiffs          failed       to     meet
their      burden         of   showing       good       cause      and    substantial       need       for    the
production of the documents                         sought in their request.                     We    reverse
the     portion       of       the    trial       court's      April       25,    2023    order       granting
the     plaintiffs'             request       for       discovery         under    La.     R.S.       6:103(H)
and     deny       the    plaintiffs'             request        for     discovery       under     La.       R. S.
6:103(H).

                                                         GH
                                                        WRC
                                                        AHP

COURT      OF APPEAL,           FIRST CIRCUIT

                FOR THE        COURT