MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc. - 475 So. 2d 1063 (La. 1985)

Rule:

Discovery is extremely broad in scope, encompassing any unprivileged matter that is relevant to the action before a court, even if the information requested would not be admissible at trial, provided that it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1422.

Facts:

Plaintiffs, MTU of Friedrichshafen and MTU of North America, Inc., manufacturer and distributor of marine diesel engines made in West Germany, filed suit to collect from defendants, Raven Marine, Inc., Transocean Marine, Inc. And Bernard Favret, $1,696,526.79 in American dollars and $1,630,837.44 in German Deutsche marks, amounts allegedly due on the sale, maintenance and repair of twenty engines. Defendants reconvened asserting that plaintiffs had breached warranties and that the engines contained redhibitory defects. In their answer to the reconventional demand, plaintiffs claim that any such defects were caused solely by the defendants' negligence or misuse of the engines. The trial court had rendered an order that compelled discovery that the testimonies of certain witnesses of the plaintiff manufacturer be retaken and imposed travel costs and attorney's fees totaling $ 29,357. 

Issue:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by compelling discovery and imposing sanctions against the plaintiff

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling the witnesses to finish answering certain questions, and affirmed the order that their testimonies be retaken. The court found the question asked one of the witnesses was calculated reasonably to lead to admissible evidence, and the witness was required to answer the question pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1422. Further, plaintiff had not shown good cause, as required by La. Code. Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1469, for a protective order that the witness not answer certain questions during the deposition. However, the trial court erred in the sanctions imposed because they exceeded those authorized by La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. arts. 1469, 1471.