Racha Trabelsi Versus Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

RACHA TRABELSI NO. 25-C-381

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA COURT OF APPEAL
HOLDINGS, ET AL
STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 17, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, AND LABCORP STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DONALD A.
ROWAN, JR., DIVISION "L", NUMBER 850-220

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relators, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Laboratory
Corporation of America, and Labcorp Staffing Solutions, Inc. seek review of the
24th Judicial District Court’ June 30, 2025 judgment granting Plaintiff, Racha
Trabelsi’s, motion to compel discovery, except as to costs and fees. For the
following reasons, we deny the writ.

Relators aver that, on January 4, 2023, Plaintiff went to one of its patient
service centers for a routine blood draw. She advised the phlebotomists that she
was fasting for religious reasons. The technician then asked her if she wanted to
postpone the draw until after she had eaten something; Plaintiff declined. As the
technician filled the last tube, Plaintiff advised she was feeling “lightheaded and
nauseous.” According to Relators, the technician made sure Plaintiff was
comfortable and secure in her chair, and retrieved a garbage can, just in case she
needed to vomit. But, despite the technician’s repeated admonishments to remain
seated, Plaintiff stood up without warning, and fell as she was walking away.

Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Relators. In her petition, Plaintiff
averred that the blood draw had been completed and she fell on her way to the
Walgreens’ restroom, as the LabCorp employees would not allow her to use its
facilities. According to Relators, Plaintiff subsequently requested the following as
discovery: “any and all incidents of patient falls and/or fainting upon/during/after
having blood drawn by Lab Corp (sic) staff for the Ten (10) year period, prior to,
and leading up to January 4, 2023” and the accompanying incident reports, and
operating procedures regarding (potential) falls and fall risks. Relators agreed to

produce the appropriate company procedure document(s), but just “reasonably
asked that it be produced subject to a basic confidentiality and protective order.”

Relators assign the following as error:

1. Trabelsi did not satisfy her burden justifying an order to compel.1

2. The District Court erred in granting Trabelsi’s motion to compel
filed contrary to District Court Rule 10.1, forcing all three
Defendants to answer her unreasonable discovery requests.2

3. The District Court erred in forcing Defendants to produce without
a confidentiality order their internal operating procedures
regarding falls.

4. Defendants should not be forced to identify incidents and produce
confidential incident reports for falls and fainting by Defendants’
clients surrounding blood collection procedures for the last ten
years without any geographic or other limitation.

Discovery statutes are to be liberally and broadly construed to achieve
their intended objectives. Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assur. Consultants, Inc.,
02-1197, p. 2 (La. 5/24/02), 819 So.2d 287, 289. A party generally may
obtain discovery of any information which is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action. La. C.C.P. art. 1422. Id.

The trial court has broad discretion in regulating pretrial discovery,
and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that
discretion. Palowsky v. Campbell, 21-279, p. 6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/26/21),
327 So.3d 589, 595, writ denied, 21-1428 (La. 11/23/21), 328 So.3d 74.

A party from whom discovery is sought may obtain a protective order
from the court to protect the person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden. La. C.C.P. art. 1426. Such a protective order
may be fashioned to preserve the confidentiality of the information
disclosed. Id. The granting or not of a protective order, and the extent of
protection, are within the discretion of the trial court; and the court of appeal
will not ordinarily modify or reverse the trial court in such matters absent an
abuse of the trial court's discretion. Id.

In this case, following a hearing, the trial court denied Relators’
request for a protective order from disclosure of its risk-prevention policies
and procedures related to falls and fainting occurring during and after blood
collections. The trial court determined that Relators failed to meet their
burden of demonstrating their procedures constituted a trade secret or
otherwise presented an annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

1
Relators aver that Plaintiff never participated in or convened a pre-motion conference as required by La. Dist. Ct.
Rules – Rule 10.1. However, according to Rule 10.1, sanctions, including attorney fees and costs, may be imposed
on the non-conferring party by the district court, at its discretion, if it finds that the parties or counsel failed to confer
in good faith, or willfully failed to confer. Relators did not ask the court to make such a finding or bring the matter
before the district court during the June 23, 2025 meeting on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
2
Plaintiff has made clear in her Opposition brief that “she accepts Defendants’ representation that all Defendants
answered the discovery”; therefore, we pretermit further discussion of the second assignment of error.

burden as contemplated by La. C.C.P. art. 1426. On the showing made, we
do not find error in this decision of the trial court. See Bianchi v. Pattison
Pontiac Co., 258 So.2d 388, 390 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1972).

Next, Relators contends the trial court erred in finding that incident reports
of falls in its facilities are not protected attorney work˗product. To determine
whether Relators’ incident reports are protected as attorney work˗product under
La. C.C.P. art. 1424, a two-fold inquiry is required: (1) Were the articles obtained
or prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial? and (2) Will the party seeking
production be unfairly prejudiced, subject to undue hardship, or subject to injustice
by denial of the discovery? See Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 99-1421, p.
5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/10/01), 798 So.2d 1210, 1214, writ not considered, 01-3087
(La. 1/25/02), 806 So.2d 665, and writ denied sub nom. Cacamo v. Liberty Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 01-2985 (La. 1/25/02), 807 So.2d 844 (citations removed). To
determine if the work-product privilege applies, a court should consider the
content, nature, and purpose of a document, not the date or time that the document
was prepared. Id. The party seeking to avoid discovery of documents bears the
burden of proving that the documents were prepared or obtained in anticipation of
litigation. Id. On the showing made, we find that the incident reports Plaintiff
requested were generated in the normal course of business, pursuant to accident
investigation protocols, and not specifically prepared in anticipation of litigation,
or in preparation for trial. See Simmons v. Transit Mgmt. of Se. Louisiana, Inc., 00-
2530, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/7/01), 780 So.2d 1074, 1077-78, writ denied, 01-0421
(La. 2/16/01), 786 So.2d 106.

Upon review of the application and La. C.C.P. arts. 1422, 1424, and 1426,
we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel. Accordingly, the writ is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 17th day of October, 2025.

MEJ
JGG
TSM

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 10/17/2025 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:

25-C-381
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald A. Rowan, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Peter J. Rotolo, III (Relator) Brent A. Talbot (Relator)
T. Carey Wicker, III (Respondent) Jesse G. Frank (Relator)
Michael S. Sepcich (Respondent)
Vincent E. Odom (Respondent)
Thomas C. Wicker, IV (Respondent)

MAILED
Davida F. Packer (Respondent) Lance Engolia (Respondent)
Attorney at Law Irvy E. Cosse, III (Respondent)
1100 Poydras Street Attorney at Law
Suite 2950 1515 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163 Suite 900
New Orleans, LA 70112