Lesley England And Sandi England, Individually And As Husband And Wife v. Dudley Debosier, Aplc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 21, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LESLEY ENGLAND AND SANDI ENGLAND,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE
VS.
DUDLEY DEBOSIER, APLC
No. 2023-CC-00567
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Dudley DeBosier, APLC - Applicant Defendant; Dudley DeBosier Risk
Management, LLC - Applicant Defendant; Dudley DeBosier Consulting, LLC -
Applicant Defendant; Racheal Bellemin - Applicant Defendant; Applying For
Supervisory Writ, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Number(s) 615,784,
Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 55,196-CW;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 21, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crain, J., concurs.
Crichton, J., recused.
JBM
JLW
JDH
JTG
PDG
06/21/2023 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-CC-00567
LESLEY ENGLAND AND SANDI ENGLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
HUSBAND AND WIFE
VS.
DUDLEY DEBOSIER, APLC
On Supervisory Writ to the 1st Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo
PER CURIAM*
Plaintiffs filed the instant legal malpractice suit against defendants, Dudley
DeBosier, APLC, Dudley DeBosier Risk Management, LLC, Dudley DeBosier
Consulting, LLC, and Racheal Bellemin. During discovery, plaintiffs issued a
corporate deposition notice to defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to quash and motion for protective order asserting
that some of the requests were irrelevant or overbroad. The district court denied the
motion and imposed sanctions against defendants. Defendants applied for
supervisory relief, which the court of appeal denied. Defendants now seek relief in
this court.
A party generally may obtain discovery of any information which is relevant
to the s ubject matter involved in the pending action. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1422.
There are limitations to this rule, however, when justice requires that a party or other
person be protected from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426; Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assur. Consultants,
Inc., 2002-1197 (La. 5/24/02), 819 So. 2d 287, 289.
A review of the discovery requests in this case indicate they have little
relevance to the underlying dispute and will only serve to place an undue burden on
* Crichton, J. recused.
06/21/23

2

defendants. For example, one of the requests asks defendants to “[e]xplain how
Texas Law and Louisiana Law are different and how those differences affected the
underlying cause(s) of action. . . .” Such an inquiry may be addressed through expert
testimony, but is not a proper subject for discovery. Another request asks about
disciplinary complaints filed against the firm and its employees. In addition to being
irrelevant, this request may potentially intrude on information which is confidential
by operations of Supreme Court, Rule XIX, § 16.
Having reviewed the information contained in the application, 1 we conclude
the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash and motion for
protective order. Based on our determination that the motions are meritorious, we
further find the district court erred in imposing sanctions. These rulings must be
reversed.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the district court denying the motion to quash and motion for protective
order filed by Dudley DeBosier, APLC, Dudley DeBosier Risk Management, LLC,
Dudley DeBosier Consulting, LLC, and Racheal Bellemin and imposing sanctions
against these defendants is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court to
enter judgment quashing th ose discovery requests identified in the motion and to
grant an appropriate protective order pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426.

1 Plaintiffs had an opportunity to file an opposition to the application pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule X, §6, but elected not to do so.