The Louisiana motion to compel: one court for everyone, including non-parties

Almost every state splits the forum for a motion to compel: a party goes to the court where the action is pending, a non-party deponent goes to the court where the deposition is being taken.

Louisiana does not. Article 1469(1) sends both to the same place.

That single line removes a step that trips up practitioners elsewhere, and it is the first thing to know about compelling discovery here.

One forum

La. C.C.P. art. 1469(1):

An application for an order to a party or a deponent who is not a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending.

A party or a deponent who is not a party — both to the court where the action is pending. There is no separate deposition-county rule to satisfy.

What can be compelled

Art. 1469(2):

If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Articles 1437 or 1448, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Articles 1442 or 1448, or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Article 1457, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Article 1461, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before he applies for an order. If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to Article 1426.

Four triggers — deposition questions, corporate designations, interrogatories and requests for inspection. And a denied motion may produce a protective order against the movant under art. 1426.

Art. 1469(3):

For purposes of this Subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.

Mandatory, not discretionary. A thin answer is no answer.

Fees run both ways, and both are mandatory

Art. 1469(4):

If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. If the motion is denied, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the moving party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.

Symmetric and mandatory, reaching the advising attorney in both directions. Substantial justification or injustice is the only escape, so build that record before filing.

There is no conference certification requirement in article 1469 — Louisiana does not condition the motion on a prior attempt to resolve it. That makes filing procedurally easier here than in Virginia or North Carolina, but the mandatory fee exposure on a denied motion means it is not cheaper in practice.

Legislators are a special case

Art. 1469(5) carries a provision with no counterpart in other states:

An application for an order compelling discovery to a member or former member of the legislature in his capacity as a state lawmaker, or a legislative employee in his official capacity, when the legislature or either body thereof is not a party to the proceeding may be made to the court in which the action is pending, but no order compelling discovery shall issue except in strict conformity with the provisions of R.S.13:3667.3(C).

Where the target is a current or former legislator acting as a lawmaker, or a legislative employee in an official capacity, and the legislature is not a party, no order may issue "except in strict conformity" with R.S. 13:3667.3(C).

The forum is unchanged, but the standard is not. If your discovery reaches the legislature, that statute governs before anything in article 1469 does.

Where this sits in a Louisiana case

Louisiana raises threshold objections by exception rather than by motion to dismiss, and the deadlines differ sharply by type — see Louisiana exceptions.

Discovery matters more than usual on the dispositive side, because Louisiana summary judgment runs on a closed list of documents that may be filed. Interrogatory answers, depositions and admissions are all on that list; many other things are not. Compel with the list in mind.

How Louisiana compares

A short checklist

1. File in the court where the action is pending — even for a non-party deponent.
2. Complete or adjourn a deposition before applying.
3. Quote art. 1469(3) where the answer was evasive or incomplete.
4. Expect a mandatory award either way. Build the substantial-justification record first.
5. Name the advising attorney where the facts support it.
6. If the target is a legislator or legislative employee, read R.S. 13:3667.3(C) first — strict conformity is required before any order issues.
7. Compel with art. 966's closed document list in mind if a summary judgment motion is the goal.
8. Do not overreach. A denied motion can draw a protective order under art. 1426.

Where these rules live

• La. C.C.P. art. 1426 — Protective orders
• La. C.C.P. art. 1457 — Interrogatories to parties
• La. C.C.P. art. 1461 — Requests for production
• La. C.C.P. art. 1469 — Motion For Order Compelling Discovery
• La. C.C.P. art. 1471 — Failure to comply with order compelling discovery

This page explains what the Code says. It isn't legal advice, and what makes an opposition substantially justified is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.