David Perry and Shantay Watkins v. F.H. Myers Construction Corporation, Myers Leasing Co., LLC, John Doe and Gray Insurance Company

DAVID PERRY AND * NO. 2023-CA-0064
SHANTAY WATKINS
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
F.H. MYERS CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, MYERS * STATE OF LOUISIANA
LEASING CO., LLC, JOHN
DOE AND GRAY INSURANCE *******
COMPANY

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2018-02401, DIVISION “E”
Honorable Omar Mason, Judge
******
JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS
******
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Rachael D. Johnson)

Vanessa Motta
MOTTA LAW LLC
3632 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Dominic J. Gianna
Thomas Ainsworth Robichaux
AARON & GIANNA, PLC
201 St. Charles Ave
Suite 3800
New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 JUDGMENT REVERSED; APPEAL OF OCTOBER
26, 2022 JUDGMENT CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED
NOVEMBER 2, 2023

SCJ
RLB
RDJ
Plaintiffs, David Perry and Shantay Watkins, appeal the September 16, 2022

judgment of the trial court granting defendants, F.H. Myers Construction

Corporation, Myers Leasing Co., LLC, and John Doe and Gray Insurance

Company’s motion for sanctions pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1471 and the October

26, 2022 judgment grant of defendants’ the motion to strike. For the following

reasons, we reverse the trial court’s September 16, 2022 judgment granting

sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel and convert the appeal of the

October 26, 2022 judgment to an application for supervisory writ and deny the

writ.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs filed a petition for damages, alleging that they sustained

physical injuries from a rear end collision on May 22, 2017. The plaintiffs were

involved in a prior accident on May 16, 2022. The defendants filed a motion for a

second medical opinion. On June 28, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment

ordering the plaintiffs to appear for a medical examination at the office of Dr.

1

Bradley Bartholomew. The judgment further provided that Dr. Bartholomew may

follow his standard office procedure for obtaining information, including a medical

history from the plaintiffs.

On July 28, 2022, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to La.

C.C.P. art. 1471, arguing that the plaintiffs refused to provide Dr. Bartholomew

with their medical history. Following a hearing, the trial court issued the

September 16, 2022 judgment, granting the defendants’ motion for sanctions

pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1471. The judgment ordered the plaintiffs to appear for

a second medical examination by Dr. Bartholomew; that the plaintiffs and their

attorney pay the cost associated with the second medical examination; that the

plaintiffs and their attorney reimburse the defendants the reasonable amounts of

costs and attorney’s fees associated with the filing and hearing on the motion for

sanctions; and that plaintiffs and their attorney pay to the defendants attorney fees

and costs in the amount of $5,965.00.

On September 19, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing on the

trial court’s September 16, 2022 judgment granting sanctions. Attached to the

plaintiffs’ motion was an audiotape transcript. On September 28, 2022, the

defendants filed a motion to strike transcript. The trial court held a hearing on

October 6, 2022. The trial court signed judgment on October 26, 2022, granting the

defendants’ motion to strike the transcript attached to plaintiffs’ motion for

rehearing. On the same date, the trial court signed a second judgment denying

plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing.

2

On November 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for suspensive appeal.

This appeal follows.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

While the plaintiffs assert five assignments of error, we narrow our

discussion to two issues: 1) whether the trial court erred in sanctioning the

plaintiffs and their attorney to pay $5,965.00 for willfully disobeying the June 28,

2022 judgment and ordering the plaintiffs to pay for the costs of Dr. Bartholomew

to conduct a second medical examination; and 2) whether the trial court erred in

striking the audiotape transcript of Dr. Bartholomew’s examination.1

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

First, we address the defendants’ motion to dismiss appeal. The defendants

argue that the September 16, 2022 judgment granting defendants’ motion for

sanctions pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1471 is an interlocutory judgment that under

La. C.C.P. art. 2083(C)2, is only appealable when expressly provided by law. The

defendants further argue that the October 26, 2022 judgment granting the

defendants’ motion to strike uncertified transcript is an interlocutory judgment, and

the issue should not be reviewed.

1 The plaintiffs’ five assignments of error are: 1) whether the trial court erred and abused its

discretion in finding at appellants willfully disobeyed the June 28, 2022 judgment; 2) whether
the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning appellants to pay $5,965.00 ($5,800.00 in
attorney fees and $165.00 in costs) and ordered appellants to pay for the cost of Dr.
Bartholomew to conduct a second medical examination; 3) whether the trial court erred in
striking the audiotape of Dr. Bartholomew’s examination; 4) whether the trial court committed
an error in law in ordering that the appellants counsel, Vanessa Motta, was in solido liable for the
sanctions imposed against the appellants without any notice; and 5) whether the trial court
abused its discretion in ordering the plaintiffs to return to Dr. Bartholomew for a medical
examination after an opinion was formed.
2 La. C.C.P. art. 2083 (C) provides that “[a]n interlocutory judgment is appealable only when

expressly provided by law.”

3

Appellate courts’ jurisdiction must be invoked by a final judgment. Joseph v.

Wasserman, 2021-0138, p. 3, (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/17/21), 334 So.3d 413, 416

(citing Embrace Home Loans, Inc. v. Burl, 2018-0321, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir.

9/19/18), 318 So.3d 86, 88). A final judgment determines the merits in whole or in

part and is identified as such by appropriate decretal language. See La. C.C.P. art.

1841 and 1918. A final judgment may be rendered and signed by the court when it

imposes sanctions or disciplinary action pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 191, 863, or

864 or La. C.E. art. 510(G). See La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(6).

This Court in Cambrie Celeste LLC v. Starboard Mgmt., LLC, 2016-1318, p.

11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/6/17), 231 So.3d 79, 85 explained that

La. C.C.P. art. 1471 sanctions are triggered when a party refuses or
fails to comply with a discovery order. Even in the absence of such an
order, La. C.C.P. art. 191 “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions
for [failing to adhere to discovery rules] since [such failure] clearly
interferes with the court’s ability to fairly administer justice.” Carter
v. Hi Nabor Super Mkt., LLC, [20]13-0529, p. 7-8 (La. App. 1 Cir.
12/30/14), 168 So.3d 698, 704. Thus, “[a] trial court has the authority
to impose sanctions on a party for [...] discovery misconduct under
both its inherent power to manage its own affairs and the discovery
articles provided in the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.” Id.,
[20]13-0529, p. 7, 168 So.3d at 703. Accordingly, it makes no
difference whether the trial court expressly issued sanctions pursuant
to La. C.C.P. art. 1471 or La. C.C.P. art. 191 in order to trigger La.
C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(6)’s application. Cf., Robinson v. Harlan, [20]12-
0363 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 131 (reinstating appeal after appellate
court erroneously held a contempt judgment under Article 1471 is not
a final and appealable judgment).

Based on the foregoing principles, we find that the September 16, 2022

judgment granting defendants’ motion for sanctions pursuant to La. C.C.P. art.

1471 fulfill the requirement of a final judgment and is subject to an immediate

4

appeal under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(6). Thus, we deny the motion to dismiss

appeal.

Next, we address the plaintiffs’ right to appeal the October 26, 2022

judgment granting the defendants’ motion to strike. The trial court striking the

uncertified transcript of a recording of Dr. Bartholomew’s medical exam is an

interlocutory judgment. “[A]lthough the jurisprudence ‘allows appeals from

otherwise unappealable interlocutory judgments when they form part of an

unrestricted appeal from a final judgment in the cause,’” this instant appeal is

restricted by La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(6). Elysian, Inc. v. Neal Auction Co., Inc.,

2020-0674, 2020-0675, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/21/21), 325 So.3d 1075, 1083

(citing Walters v. Canal Motors, Inc., 240 So.2d 101, 103 (La. App. 4 Cir.1970)).

Therefore, the plaintiffs do not have the right to appeal the interlocutory judgment

on the motion to strike.

Conversion of Appeal to Writ Application

“A court of appeal has plenary power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction

over district courts and may do so at any time, according to the discretion of the

court.” Joseph, 2021-0138, p. 4, 334 So.3d at 416 (quoting Dupuy Storage &

Forwarding, LLC v. Max Speciality Ins. Co., 2016-0050, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir.

10/5/16), 203 So.3d 337, 344). Therefore, this Court has the discretion to consider

an interlocutory judgment under our supervisory authority. “Because the proper

procedural vehicle for seeking review of an interlocutory judgment is ordinarily by

application for supervisory review, we can-when appropriate–convert the improper

appeal to such an application.” Id., 2021-0138, p. 4, 334 So.3d at 417. When

confronted with a lack of appellate jurisdiction, we have converted an appeal to an

application for supervisory writ, in cases where appeals were filed within thirty-

5

day period allowed for the filing of applications for supervisory review. Freeman

v. Phillips 66 Co., 2016-0247, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/21/16), 208 So.3d 437, 441.

Plaintiffs’ motion for appeal was filed on November 3, 2022, which is

within the thirty-day period allowed. Thus, we exercise our discretion to convert

the appeal of the October 26, 2022 interlocutory judgment into an application for

supervisory writ. We now address the merits of the appeal.

September 16, 2022 Sanction Judgment

The plaintiffs argue that they did not willfully or intentionally ignore the

trial court’s June 28, 2022 judgment ordering them to appear to Dr. Bartholomew

for a medical examination. The plaintiffs contend that Dr. Bartholomew’s written

report that provided they refused to answer questions about their medical and

accident histories was inaccurate. The plaintiffs further contend that Dr.

Bartholomew implied that they could defer to their medical records that were

already in Dr. Bartholomew’s possession. Further, plaintiffs contend that they have

transcript of an audiotape recording reflecting Dr. Bartholomew’s implications.3

An Appellate Court reviews a trial court’s finding of contempt under a

manifestly erroneous standard of review. State through Dep’t of Children &

Family Servs. Child Support Enf’t. v. Knapp, 2016-0979, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir.

4/12/17), 216 So.3d 130, 139. A trial court is vested with great discretion in

determining whether to hold a party in contempt of court. Joseph v. Entergy, 2007-

0688, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/5/07), 972 So.2d 1230, 1236. This discretion is

further vested in the trial court when imposing sanctions for failing to comply with

discovery orders. Raspanti v. Litchfield, 2005-1512, 2006-0331, pp. 9-10 (La. App.

3 The trial court’s June 28, 2022 judgment provided that the plaintiffs were “permitted to have an

observer and permitted to record the examination.”

6

4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 234, 241. “Thus, appellate courts do not reverse the

trial court's imposition of sanctions absent an abuse of discretion.” Id.

“A court’s finding that a person willfully disobeyed a lawful judgment in

violation of La. C.C.P. art. 224(2)4 must be based on a finding that the accused

violated an order of the court ‘intentionally, purposely, and without justifiable

excuse.’” State through Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. Child Support Enf’t.,

2016-0979, p. 13, 216 So.3d at 140 (quoting Burst v. Schmolke, 2010-1036, p. 6

(La. App. 4 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 829, 833).

La. C.C.P. art. 1471 provides in pertinent parts:

A. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a
person designated under Article 1442 or 1448 to testify on behalf
of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,
including an order made under Article 1464 or Article 1469, the
court in which the action is pending may make such orders in
regard to the failure as are just, including any of the following:

(1) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made
or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party
obtaining the order.

(2) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or
oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from
introducing designated matters in evidence.

(3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying
further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the
action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a final default
judgment against the disobedient party upon presentation of proof
as required by Article 1702.

(4) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an
order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

(5) Where a party has failed to comply with an order under Article
1464, requiring him to produce another for examination, such

4 “Willful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court” is

an act that constitutes a constructive contempt of court. La. C.C.P. art. 224(2).

7

orders as are listed in Subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
Paragraph, unless the party failing to comply shows that he is
unable to produce such person for examination.

***

C. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the
court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the
attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds
that the failure was substantially justified or that other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

The sanctions outlined in La. C.C.P. art. 1471 are imposed when a party fails

to comply with a trial court’s discovery order. Cambrie Celeste LLC, 2016-1318,

p. 11, 231 So.3d at 85. In this matter, on September 16, 2022, the trial court issued

a judgment on the defendants’ motion for sanctions. The trial court found that the

plaintiffs were in contempt of court for direct violations of the court’s June 28,

2022 judgment and orders.

However, review of the record provides that the plaintiffs attended the

medical examination. While Dr. Bartholomew’s medical report of Ms. Watkins

provides “[s]he refused to answer any questions on her patient personal history

form regarding this injury” and Mr. Perry “[u]pon…attorney’s advice...did not

answer really any questions on his patient personal history form. They said to see

records,” this is not a sufficient showing that the plaintiffs’ failure to verbally give

their medical history was willful disobedience of the trial court’s June 28, 2022

judgment, and such failure was intentional and without justifiable excuse. See La.

C.C.P. art. 224(2); State through Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. Child Support

Enf’t., 2016-0979, pp. 22-23, 216 So.3d at 145 (The Court found that the trial court

was not manifestly erroneous in denying mover’s rule for contempt, and finding

8

that the non-mover’s occasional failure to notify the mover of the child’s location

was not a willful disobedience of the consent judgment).

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to support willful disobedience, we

find the trial court abused its discretion in granting sanctions against the plaintiffs

and the plaintiffs’ counsel.

October 26, 2022 Motion to Strike Judgment

Next, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in striking their audiotape

transcript of Dr. Bartholomew’s examination that was attached to their

memorandum in support for motion for rehearing on the trial court’s September 16,

2022 judgment. The defendants argued in their motion to strike that the transcript

attached to the plaintiffs’ memorandum was an unauthenticated transcript of

audiotape recordings and it was inadmissible hearsay.

We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to strike under an abuse of

discretion standard. In re Medical Review Panel of Williams v. EMSA Louisiana,

Inc., 2015-1178, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/21/16), 203 So.3d 419, 425 (citing

Madison v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 2014–0717, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.

8/26/15), 173 So.3d 1246, 1251).

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2164, an appellate court must render its judgment

upon the record on appeal. This Court in Mazzini v. Strathman, 2013-0555, p. 5

(La. App. 4 Cir. 4/16/14), 140 So.3d 253, 256 (quoting Ritter v. Exxon Mobile

Corporation, 2008-1404, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/9/09), 20 So.3d 540, 546),

explained:

evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be
considered, even if physically placed in the record. Documents
attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be
considered as such on appeal.” Denoux v. Vessel Management
Services, Inc., 2007–2143 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84. When the trial

9

judge rules the evidence is inadmissible, a proffer (offer of proof) can
be made. La. C.C.P. art. 1636. It is incumbent upon the party who
contends his evidence was improperly excluded to make a proffer, and
if he fails to do so, he cannot contend such exclusion is error. Grusich
v. Grusich, 447 So.2d 93 (La. App. 4 Cir.1984).

The transcript of the October 6, 2022 hearing, wherein the trial court granted

the defendants’ motion to strike, reflects that the plaintiffs failed to make a proffer

of the purported audiotape transcript of Dr. Bartholomew’s examination.

Accordingly, the issue of admissibility of the transcript is beyond our review. For

these reasons, we deny the writ application.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the trial court’s September 16, 2022

judgment granting sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel. We convert

the appeal of the October 26, 2022 judgment to an application for supervisory writ

and deny the writ.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 JUDGMENT REVERSED; APPEAL OF OCTOBER
26, 2022 JUDGMENT CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED

10