Motion to Quash Subpoena in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Quash Subpoena

“A basic premise of our system of justice is that both sides to a dispute stand on equal footing in gathering evidence and preparing for trial. The discovery rules are not ends in themselves, but are meant to aid in the search for the truth.” (See Diamond Fields v. Ochsner Med. Ctr.- Kenner, No. 22-C-64, at *6 (La. Ct. App. May 11, 2022); Hicks v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co. (2022) 339 So. 3d 1106, 1112.)

“To that end, this Court has previously summarized the objectives of the Louisiana discovery process as affording all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, discovering the true facts and compelling disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found, and assisting litigants in preparing their cases for trial.” (See id.)

“Discovery statutes are to be liberally and broadly construed to achieve their intended objectives.” (See id.)

“Discovery should be allowed where such discovery relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." (See Molaison v. Cust-O-Fab Specialty Servs. (2022) 343 So. 3d 866, 872.)

“A subpoena may order a person to appear and/or produce at the trial or hearing, books, papers, documents, or any other tangible things in his possession or under his control, if a reasonably accurate description thereof is given.” (See Francois v. Norfolk So. (2002) 812 So. 2d 804, 805.)

“The court in which the action is pending in its discretion may vacate or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive.” (See Francois v. Norfolk So. (2002) 812 So. 2d 804, 805.)

“The subpoena request must be limited to information that is relevant or necessary to the case before the court.” (See Hughes v. Capital City Press, LLC, 2022 CA 1133, at *5 (La. Ct. App. June 2, 2023).)

Rules Governing Subpoenas

Subpoena duces tecum are governed under subsection 1354 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Revised Statutes.

“A subpoena may order a person to appear and produce at the trial, deposition, or hearing, books, papers, documents, any other tangible things, or electronically stored information, in his possession or under his control, if a reasonably accurate description thereof is given.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(A).)

“A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced. A party or an attorney requesting the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or cost on a person subject to that subpoena.” (See id.)

“The court in which the action is pending in its discretion may vacate or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. Except when otherwise required by order of the court, certified copies, extracts, or copies of books, papers, and documents may be produced in obedience to the subpoena duces tecum instead of the originals thereof. If the party or attorney requesting the subpoena does not specify that the named person shall be ordered to appear, the person may designate another person having knowledge of the contents of the books, papers, documents, other things, or electronically stored information, to appear as his representative.” (See id.)

“A person commanded to respond to a subpoena duces tecum may within fifteen days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance, if such time is less than fifteen days after service, send to the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objections, with supporting reasons, to any or all of the requests, including objection to the production of electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. If objection is so made, the party serving the subpoena may file a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and may move for sanctions for failure to reasonably comply.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(B).)

“A person responding to a subpoena to produce books, papers, or documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or may organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(C).)

“If a subpoena does not specify the form or forms for producing electronically stored information, a person responding to a subpoena may produce the information in a form or forms in which the person ordinarily maintains it or in a form or forms that are reasonably useable.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(D).)

“A person responding to a subpoena need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(E).)

“A person responding to a subpoena need not produce books, papers, documents, or electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel production or to quash, the person from whom production is sought shall show that the information sought is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order production from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. The court may specify conditions, including an allocation of the costs, for the production.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(F).)

“When the person subpoenaed is an adverse party, the party requesting the subpoena duces tecum may accompany his request with a written request under oath as to what facts he believes the books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things will prove, and a copy of such statement shall be attached to the subpoena. If the party subpoenaed fails to comply with the subpoena, the facts set forth in the written statement shall be taken as confessed, and in addition the party subpoenaed shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Article 1357.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(G).)

“Subpoenas duces tecum shall reproduce in full the provisions of this Article.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1354(H).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Quash Subpoena

“Appellate courts review a district court's ruling on a motion to quash concerning a subpoena duces tecum under an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Hughes v. Capital City Press, LLC, 2022 CA 1133, at *4-5 (La. Ct. App. June 2, 2023).)

“Further, a district court has broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters, which will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.” (See id; Bell v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, (2007) 950 So.2d 654, 656.)

“Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner.” (See Sullivan v. Brookshire Grocery Co. & Sealy Uptown, LLC (2022) 348 So. 3d 872, 875.)

“The word ‘arbitrary’ implies a disregard of evidence or the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is ‘capricious’ when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.” (See id.)

“Although a reviewing court defers to reasonable decisions within the trial court's discretion, a decision based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, is not entitled to such deference.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Quash Subpoena

It is well settled that “since courts are to construe discovery statutes liberally and broadly, including those provisions addressing the scope of discovery, any relevant unprivileged information, whether or not admissible at trial and whether documents or tangible things, is discoverable.” (See In re Marriage of Kuntz (2008) 998 So. 2d 120, 124; Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad (1994) 631 So. 2d 401, 406.)

As such, it is well settled that “the discovery articles grant the trial court the power to compel discovery and the discretion to impose various sanctions on a party or his attorney for unjustified failure to comply with the statutory scheme or to obey an order compelling discovery.” (See Reich, Album & Plunkett, L.L.C. v. Mugnier (2021) 334 So. 3d 986, 989.)