Meg Vincent, Wife of and Keith Vincent, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Children, Emma Vincent, Camille Vincent, Harrison Vincent and Hudson Vincent Versus National General Insurance Company, Dr. Fredrick Dantagnan on Behalf of the Minor Jacqueline Dantagnan and Hudson Insurance Company

MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH NO. 22-C-50
VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA VINCENT, FIFTH CIRCUIT
CAMILLE VINCENT, HARRISON VINCENT
AND HUDSON VINCENT COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, DR. FREDRICK DANTAGNAN ON
BEHALF OF THE MINOR JACQUELINE
DANTAGNAN AND HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY

February 10, 2022

Susan Buchholz
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE MEG VINCENT, ET AL

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
MICHAEL P. MENTZ, DIVISION "F", NUMBER 782-360

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT GRANTED; STAY LIFTED

In this writ application, relator-counsel, Ms. Vanessa Motta, seeks review of
the trial court’s February 4, 2022 ruling permitting a subpoena to issue pursuant to
La. C.E. art. 508 compelling her to testify at trial in this matter. For the following
reasons, we grant this writ and reverse the trial court’s ruling.

This litigation arises out a lawsuit filed for personal injuries allegedly
sustained in an automobile accident by plaintiff, Ms. Meg Vincent. On February 2,
2022, defendant-insurer Hudson Specialty Insurance Company (Hudson) filed a
motion for a “Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 508 Hearing to Issue Subpoena
to Vanessa Motta for Records and Trial Testimony.” In its motion, Hudson sought
to have the trial court issue a subpoena to Ms. Motta, plaintiff’s counsel, in her
individual capacity to compel her to testify at trial and to produce documentation
of any billing negotiations, agreements, or communications between Ms. Motta
and Medport LA, LLC, a third-party medical factoring company, as well as
between Ms. Motta and any of plaintiff’s medical providers. Hudson contends that
plaintiff’s healthcare providers assigned their rights to collect medical expenses
related to plaintiff’s treatment to a factoring company, Medport, for a discounted
or negotiated rate.

22-C-50

In support of its motion, Hudson argued that because plaintiff seeks to
recover at trial the entirety of the medical bills or fees related to her medical
treatment in connection with the automobile accident, Ms. Motta’s testimony is
relevant to show any negotiations between counsel and Medport. Hudson
contended that it “has a right to explore what arrangements Ms. Motta and her law
office had in place with various medical providers that treated Ms. Vincent.”1
Hudson asserted that, at trial, plaintiff may only seek to recover in medical
expenses the amount that Medport paid for the purchase of the medical debt at
issue.2

In its prayer for relief, Hudson requested that the Court issue a subpoena to
Ms. Motta seeking:

(1) All records in your possession, including but not limited to any account
statements or billing ledgers, evidencing payment for medical services
rendered to Meg D. Vincent, DOB xx/xx/1976, SS# xxx-xx-3598, showing
amounts paid, by whom, and date of payment, and any bills of sale.
(2) Also produce any contracts or agreements in your possession between
Medport LA, LLC and any medical provider that treated Meg Vincent from
April 16, 2017 to the present.
(3) All communications between you and Medport LA, LLC, or any
representative or attorney for Medport, regarding Meg Vincent.
(4) All communications with medical providers in connection with the
referenced case.

At the February 4, 2022 hearing, Ms. Motta testified that all documents and
evidence sought from Hudson could be obtained through other practicable means.
She testified that Hudson “made no attempt to reach out to Medport LA LLC by
either Letters of Rogatory or asking for a deposition, and [Hudson] objected to
[Medport’s] Motion to Intervene.”3 She reiterated that all documents that Hudson
sought to obtain in its motion could be obtained through requests from either
Medport, plaintiff’s treating healthcare providers, or plaintiff individually through
discovery. She further testified that she has no other relevant documents in her
possession to produce in response to the subpoena sought by Hudson.

1
In support of its motion, Hudson introduced plaintiff’s deposition wherein she testified that she had no knowledge
of any factoring company involvement when she began treating with her physicians. Further, plaintiff testified that
she has been sued by Medport for approximately $443,000.00. Hudson also introduced the deposition of Dr.
Liechty, taken on February 1, 2022, who testified that he “sometimes” takes insurance but he only does so to cover
facility fees, not his own professional fees. Hudson also attached the “Master Purchase Agreement” between
Medport and One Spine Institute, Louisiana, LLC, one of plaintiff’s providers.
2
On September 21, 2021, this Court vacated the granting of a motion in limine on this issue because the parties
failed to properly offer, file, and introduce evidence into the record at the motion hearing. Hudson sought a ruling
from the trial court “prohibiting plaintiff from introducing any evidence at trial as to the billed amount of the
medical specials” and “evidence relating to full medical charges printed on invoices,” which the trial court granted.
On supervisory review, this Court was unable to reach the merits of the issue presented, finding that Hudson failed
to properly offer, file, and introduce into evidence any documentation to support its motion. This Court vacated the
trial court judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Thereafter, Hudson failed to reurge the
motion in limine, to do so with properly introduced evidence for the court’s consideration, and thus that issue has
not been determined on the merits in this case, and is not before us in this writ application.
3
Medport attempted to intervene in this litigation to assert its alleged right to collect plaintiff’s medical expenses.
The trial court denied the petition for intervention, and Medport sought review from that ruling from this Court. On
October 29, 2021, this Court denied Medport’s writ application, finding that, “at the hearing on its motion, Medport
failed to introduce any evidence or testimony whatsoever to prove the alleged assignment relationship with Mrs.
Vincent’s medical providers to demonstrate its asserted interest in the case.”
2

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge granted Hudson’s La. C.E.
art. 508 motion, compelling plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Motta, to testify at trial of this
matter and to produce the requested records.4 This timely writ application follows.

La. C.E. art. 508, titled “Subpoena of lawyer or his representative in civil
cases” provides:

Neither a subpoena nor a court order shall be issued to a lawyer or his
representative to appear or testify in any civil or juvenile proceeding,
including pretrial discovery, or in an administrative investigation or
hearing, where the purpose of the subpoena or order is to ask the lawyer
or his representative to reveal information about a client or former client
obtained in the course of representing the client unless, after a
contradictory hearing, it has been determined that the information
sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege or
work product rule; and all of the following:

(1) The information sought is essential to the successful completion of
an ongoing investigation, is essential to the case of the party seeking
the information, and is not merely peripheral, cumulative, or
speculative.
(2) The purpose of seeking the information is not to harass the attorney
or his client.
(3) With respect to a subpoena, the subpoena lists the information
sought with particularity, is reasonably limited as to subject matter and
period of time, and gives timely notice.
(4) There is no practicable alternative means of obtaining the
information.

La. C. E. art. 508 (emphasis added).

Upon review of the writ application and all documents properly introduced
into evidence, we find that the information requested by Hudson is available
through other practicable means. Therefore, we find that Hudson failed to meet its
burden under La. C.E. art. 508 to show justification to issue a subpoena to compel
Ms. Motta in her individual capacity to produce documents and testimony
surrounding plaintiff’s medical treatment or any alleged agreements or contracts
with Medport. We find that Hudson can obtain the documentation and testimony it
seeks from a corporate representative of Medport through letters rogatory pursuant
to La. R.S. 13:3823, or through other providers or plaintiff individually through the
discovery process.

Accordingly, we grant this writ application and reverse the trial court’s
February 4, 2022 judgment granting Hudson’s motion pursuant to La. C.E. art. 508
and permitting the issuance of a subpoena to Ms. Motta in her individual capacity

4
Relatedly, Ms. Motta filed a motion to quash a prior subpoena—issued prior to Hudson’s Article 508 motion—
which the trial court denied. In her notice of intent, Ms. Motta sought review of the February 4, 2022 judgment
“compelling Plaintiff counsel Vanessa Motta to be called to the stand as a witness in the instant matter and granting
Defendants LSA-C.C.P. art. 508 hearing.” In this writ application, Ms. Motta failed to provide documentation to
this Court to prove the type of service effectuated that she alleges was improper in her motion to quash.
Nevertheless, in opposition to this writ application, Hudson acknowledged that the prior subpoena is now “moot”
and that the procedure set forth in La. C.E. art. 508, which sought to have the trial court issue a subpoena compelling
testimony and the production of documents, replaced the prior subpoena and that Hudson does not seek Ms. Motta’s
compliance with that prior subpoena.
3

compelling her to provide records and trial testimony in this matter. The stay
previously issued is hereby lifted.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of February, 2022.

FHW
MEJ
SJW

4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 02/10/2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-C-50
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Michael P. Mentz (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Kyle L. Potts (Respondent) Vanessa Motta (Relator)
Dane S. Ciolino (Relator) Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell (Respondent)

MAILED
Clare S. Roubion (Relator) Peter M. Donovan (Respondent) Christopher A. D'Amour (Respondent)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Edwin C. Laizer (Respondent)
18 Farnham Place 4640 Rye Street Attorneys at Law
Metairie, LA 70005 Suite 100 701 Poydras Street
Metairie, LA 70006 Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139

- ·-.
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse D Agent
so that we can return the card to you. D Addressee
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 9i- D~t~ of Delivery
or on the front if space permits. ..t-· \4·??
1. Article Addressed to: 0. Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: D No
Peter M. Donovan
Attorney at Law
4640 Rye .Street -Suite 100
Metairie, LA 70006
22_C-50 02-10-22
3. Service Type 0 Pr1ortty Mall Express4D

I
II llllll llll Ill 111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9402 2434 6249 3628 43 0 Certified
0 Adult Signature

Mall Restricted Delivery
0 Registered Mall"'
D ;.dull Signature Restricted Oerivery
I!(Certlfled Mall®
0 R119lstered Mall Restricted
j)elovery
!l'Retum Receipt for
Merchandise
-::---:--::-:--:-,.--:---=--:--:-------c------1 D Collect on Delivery 0 Signature ConfirmationTM
2. Article Number (rransfer from seNice label) D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
n 1'1SUred Mall 0 Signature Confirmation
7 a1 b 2 a7 a aaaa a9 s4 6 410 ISUred Mall Restricted 0e11very
'ver$500)
Restricted Delivery

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt

'