Opinion
NO. 19-CA-138
10-02-2019
Bryan BEDI v. Melinda PRICE, Wife of Bryan Bedi
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, BRYAN BEDI, Laura J. Todaro, Kenner, LA COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, MELINDA PRICE, WIFE OF BRYAN BEDI, Melinda Price Bedi COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE, MARGARET MCKENZIE AND MELISSA MARTINDALE, Robert L. Raymond, Destrehan, LA COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE AND MARGARET MCKENZIE, Chester C. Stetfelt, Metairie, LA
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, BRYAN BEDI, Laura J. Todaro, Kenner, LA
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, MELINDA PRICE, WIFE OF BRYAN BEDI, Melinda Price Bedi
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE, MARGARET MCKENZIE AND MELISSA MARTINDALE, Robert L. Raymond, Destrehan, LA
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE AND MARGARET MCKENZIE, Chester C. Stetfelt, Metairie, LA
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
MOLAISON, J.
Appellant, Melinda Price Bedi, in proper person, filed the instant appeal which challenges several rulings of the trial court related to an underlying domestic proceeding. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We first take note of appellant's prior appeal, 18-CA-476, which was dismissed by this Court as abandoned by an Order dated April 10, 2019. In that appeal, appellant had filed a motion to supplement the record with the files of three court reporters based upon an allegation that there was "missing verbiage" left out of the official transcripts of the proceedings. In denying appellant's motion on October 17, 2018, we found that she had not demonstrated any inaccuracies or misstatements in the record.
Prior to the dismissal, appellant was granted three extensions to file a brief.
The court reporters are identified as Margaret McKenzie, Wanda Vice-Loupe, and Melissa Martindale.
While 18-CA-476 was pending, appellant filed a second appeal (the instant appeal), which was designated as 19-CA-138. In the record for 19-CA-138, there is a trial court judgment dated October 9, 2018, which pertained to an Ex Parte Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition for Records Only and Subpoenas Duces Tecum filed by the court reporters who had transcribed various proceedings in the matter. While the judgment partially granted the motion to quash, it also ordered appellant to identify by volume, page and line, which portions of the official transcript she claimed were inaccurate. In turn, the court reporters were to compare appellant's allegations to their own shorthand notes or any recordings they had in their possession. If, in fact, there were corrections made by the court reporters to any portion of the transcripts, the court reporters were then ordered to send the amended versions to the Clerk of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles.
On December 5, 2018, the trial court issued an order stating: "the Motion for Appeal...filed on October 17, 2018," relating to the motion to quash "is denied for the written reasons this date." The trial court also granted appellant thirty days "from the date of this Order to seek supervisory review of the judgment denying" the ex parte motion to quash notices. The trial judge, in denying the motion for appeal, found that the judgment appealed was interlocutory, therefore, not appealable. However, the order with motion for appeal, which was not signed until January 9, 2019, granted the motion for appeal. As discussed below, we find that appellant's claims are properly considered on appeal.
On April 9, 2019, this Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and ordered the trial court to amend the October 9, 2018 judgment to "include the appropriate and necessary decretal language within fifteen (15) days of this order." The trial court amended the judgment on that same date. The amended judgment stated that the trial court was ruling in favor of the court reporters to the extent that appellant was ordered to specifically identify which portions of the transcript she believed were incorrectly transcribed. The amended judgment further clarified that the trial court ruled in favor of appellant insofar as the court reporters were ordered to take appellant's allegations of the incomplete transcripts and compare these to their own notes, in whatever form they existed, within 72 hours, and to transmit any corrections to the Clerk of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles. Counsel for the court reporters was further ordered to advise appellant "of the results of their searches for missing portions of the transcript(s) and shall further advise when each of them delivers any missing portions(s) of transcripts to the trial court's clerk of court."
THE MOTION FOR APPEAL IN CASE 19-CA-138
In appellant's motion for appeal, which was filed in the trial court on October 17, 2018, appellant specifically challenged the trial court's partial grant of the court reporters' motion to quash, as well as the trial court's decision to schedule a hearing on appellant's two ex parte motions she claims were filed on September 10, 2018.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
As noted above, appellant is representing herself in proper person on appeal. To that end, we acknowledge La. C.C.P. art. 865, which provides the general principle that pleadings are to be "construed as to do substantial justice." The Louisiana Supreme Court has interpreted that provision to require that pleadings be construed "to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at truth, and to do substantial justice." Kuebler v. Martin , 578 So.2d 113, 114 (La. 1991). Additionally, "pleadings are to be construed in the light of their allegations as a whole and not in view of a detached sentence or paragraph therein standing alone." Mid–City Investment Co., Inc. v. Young , 238 So.2d 780, 784 (La. App. 1st Cir.1970).
Taking the foregoing into account, appellant's brief is technically deficient in one important aspect: she fails to identify a specific assignment of error. The matter is further complicated by appellant's abandoned appeal in which issues related to the official transcripts were indirectly addressed by this Court in connection with appellant's motion to supplement the appellate record.
Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal Rule 2-12.4 provides that an appellant's brief must contain "assignments of alleged error" which are also briefed for the Court's consideration.
In appellant's brief, she references an April 13, 2018 judgment rendered in favor of her ex-husband, Bryan Bedi, which appears to have formed the basis of her appeal designated as 18-CA-476. As noted above, that appeal was dismissed as abandoned by an Order dated April 10, 2019.
Appellant's brief next makes reference to counsel for the court reporters filing a motion to quash subpoenas. It appears from the record that appellant had served a notice of deposition for records only upon the three court reporters on August 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to quash was set for October 9, 2018, on the same date that the hearing on Bryan Bedi's motion for divorce had also been scheduled. In general terms, appellant appears to assert that she should have been granted access to the court reporters' notes and recordings, but then shifts her argument to assert that the trial court erred in granting the divorce between the parties. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider the ex parte motions that she had filed without the necessity of a contradictory hearing. The conclusion of appellant's brief is that she is "entitled to the requests of audio recordings, copy of original transcript, and documents as requested and issued for Records Only."
Pursuant to the mandate given to this Court in La. C.C.P. art. 865, and considering the record before us, we find that appellant presents two issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding the court reporters' motion to quash, and; 2) whether the trial court erred in not considering appellant's motions ex parte, without a contradictory hearing.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Initially, we must determine whether this is an appealable judgment. A judgment that does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the action is an interlocutory judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. An interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law. La. C.C.P. art. 2083 C. Generally, a judgment involving preliminary discovery matters is interlocutory and non-appealable. Gariepy v. Evans Indus., Inc. , 06-106 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/25/07), 968 So.2d 753, 754 ; Larriviere v. Howard , 00-186 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/11/00), 771 So.2d 747, writ granted in part and remanded by 00-3087 (La. 1/26/01), 781 So.2d 567. However, a judgment resolving a discovery issue against a non-party is appealable as it resolves all of the issues between the non-party and the party seeking discovery. Gariepy , 968 So.2d at 755. Under the facts of this case, where the court reporters are not parties to the underlying litigation, we find review to be proper on appeal.
--------
We first consider appellant's argument regarding the motion to quash. As detailed in the procedural history above, in case 18-CA-476, appellant had filed a motion to supplement the record based upon an allegation that the transcripts, as filed, were incorrect. This Court's October 17, 2018 Order denying the supplementation reads as follows:
Appellant, Melinda Price-Bedi, in proper person, has filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with the three court reporters' files pertaining to this case, including all written documents and recordings in the court reporters' possession relating to the case. Appellant argues this supplementation is necessary because "there is missing verbiage" in the appellate record.
Under La. C.C.P. art. 2132, a record on appeal which is incorrect or contains misstatements may be corrected by the parties by stipulation, by the trial court or by the order of the appellate court. In her motion to supplement, Appellant alleges the appellate record contains "missing verbiage." However, Appellant fails to offer any proof as to inaccuracies in the record, but merely seeks to supplement the record with the entirety of the court reporters' recordings pertaining to this case.
The Clerk of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court certified that the record is a true copy of the original record and includes all the pleadings, evidence and documents in the case. Additionally, the transcripts all contain the official court reporters' certifications that the transcripts are true and accurate. Given these certifications and absent any proof of inaccuracies, we must presume the appellate record before us is correct. Accordingly, this Court is unable to conclude that the certified record is incorrect or contains misstatements. See Karagiannopoulos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 94-1048 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/99), 752 So.2d 202, 207-08, writs denied , 99-2866 (La. 12/10/99), 752 So.2d 165, 99-3474 (La. 2/11/00), 754 So.2d 940.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate at this time that supplementation of the record is warranted due to inaccuracies or misstatements in the record, her motion to supplement the record is hereby DENIED .
It does not appear that this Court had notice at the time our October 17, 2018 Order was issued that the trial court had ruled on a similar request by appellant on October 9, 2018. Incidentally, the trial court's ruling afforded appellant an opportunity to provide information to facilitate the relief she sought, the very same information that was lacking in her motion to supplement before this Court. The record does not show that appellant availed herself of the chance to point out her perceived discrepancies in the relevant transcripts. Appellant's apparent inaction, in turn, offered no basis upon which the court reporters would be able to comply with the second part of the trial court's order, to provide any necessary amendments to the transcripts after consulting their own records. As a matter of law, La. R.S. 44:4 specifically prohibits appellant from gaining access to the court reporters notes or recordings, as these are not considered to be public records. La. R.S. 44:4(47)(a) states:
[This Chapter shall not apply:]
To the physical medium or contents of any electronic storage device including any compact disc, digital video disc, jump drive, audio or video cassette tape, or any other type of electronic storage device, or to any shorthand or longhand notes or writings or stenotype paper tapes in the custody or under the control of a judge, clerk of court, official court reporter, deputy official court reporter, or certified electronic reporter and which are produced, made, or used by an official court reporter, deputy official court reporter, free lance reporter, or certified electronic reporter in any court of record of the state during any proceedings before that court to report the proceedings or for the purpose of transcribing into typewriting those portions of the proceedings required by law or by the court to be transcribed.
The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters. Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assur. Consultants, Inc. , 02-1197 (La. 5/24/02), 819 So.2d 287, 289. In this instance, after a review of the trial court's amended order from October 9, 2018, we find no abuse of discretion or error by the trial court upon which relief can be granted.
Ex Parte Motions
In her second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to consider her ex parte motions on October 9, 2018. However, the record contains a judgment dated December 5, 2018, which explains that while the trial court declined to consider appellant's motions ex parte, the court would instead set those motions for a contradictory hearing on January 9, 2019. The record before us does not contain a disposition for those matters.
La. C.C.P. art. 963 provides:
If the order applied for by written motion is one to which mover is clearly entitled without supporting proof, the court may grant the order ex parte and without hearing the adverse party.
If the order applied for by written motion is one to which the mover is not clearly entitled, or which requires supporting proof, the motion shall be served on and tried contradictorily with the adverse party.
The rule to show cause is a contradictory motion.
Appellant's motion for appeal references two ex parte motions. The first, filed on September 10, 2018, was titled "Motion for Spousal Support, Continued Health and Vehicle Insurance Coverage, Use of Family Home to Include all Community Immovables, and Court Ordered Rental/Deposit and Late Fee Monies Pending Appellate Decision." The second, filed on October 4, 2010, was styled as "Emergency Ex Parte Motion for payment of rental."
In reviewing the ex parte motions, we note that appellant's claims, such as the amount of Mr. Bedi's alleged arrearages incurred under a consent judgment, clearly require supporting evidence. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's action in setting appellant's ex parte motions for a contradictory hearing, during which the trial court could determine the amount of arrearages owed, if any. See , Searles v. Searles , 08-1098 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/27/09), 9 So.3d 997. DECREE
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and on the showing made, we find an insufficient basis upon which to disturb the rulings of the trial court. The trial court's rulings identified in this opinion are affirmed.