Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

225 So. 2d 315

Docket No. 2823.

Roy v. Moity

J. Arthur ROY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren J. MOITY and the Jearco Corporation of Louisiana, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied August 7, 1969.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1969-06-25

Relies on Advertiser, Division of the Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs · 196 So. 2d 686 - Anderson v. Southern Consumers Education Found. · 199 So. 2d 427 - Ritchey v. Desser

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1991

13 state decisions

601969197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*316 J. Minos Simon and Robert A. Leckey, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

¶2Koury & Judice by Joseph A. Koury, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.

¶3En Banc.

¶4

On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

¶5TATE, Judge.

¶6The defendants appeal from judgment assessing them with $250.00 attorney's fees in connection with their failure to make discovery as required by law. Upon the failure of the defendants-appellants to answer certain written interrogatories, LSA-CCP Art. 1491, plaintiff-appellee filed a rule to compel answer to them and to have awarded to him reasonable attorney's fees incurred to obtain said order, LSA-CCP Art. 1511. Prior to the hearing, the defendants-appellants answered the interrogatories.

¶7At the hearing, the trial court awarded the plaintiff-appellee $250 attorney's fees under the provisions of Article 1511, finding that "The plaintiff was forced to rule the defendants into Court in order to get the defendants to answer the interrogatories propounded to them." The defendants-appellants appeal from this order.

¶8The plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss this appeal as from a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. LSA-CCP Art. 2083.

¶9The motion has merit. Discovery orders, including those which assess attorney's fees for failure to make discovery as required by statute, are interlocutory orders which are held to be nonappealable interlocutory judgments which do not do irreparable injury. The Advertiser v. Tubbs, La.App.3d Cir., 199 So.2d 426; Anderson v. Southern Consumers Education Foundation, La.App.3d Cir., 196 So.2d 686.

¶10As stated in The Advertiser v. Tubbs, cited above, at 199 So.2d 427: "To impede the progress of litigation by granting an appeal whenever statutory enforcement provisions of the discovery devices are invoked seems to us a policy most unwise, for the every purpose of discovery devices is to reduce the delays inherent in the enforcement and defense of legal rights. Appellant's remedy, an application to this court for supervisory writs, affords him speedy and ample protection against oppressive or unreasonable sanctions which may be imposed by the lower cort during pretrial production of evidence."

¶11The motion is therefore granted, with the defendants-appellants to pay all costs.

¶12Appeal dismissed.

¶13

On Application for Rehearing.

¶14En Banc. Rehearing denied.

¶15MILLER, J., votes for rehearing.

/225/so2d/315 · .json · Public domain