WILFRED JOSEPH LEROY ELLIS AND BERNARD COLEMAN APPEARING BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NEW MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH v. REVEREND JOHN SCOTT (2026)

Appellant, Ms. Alma Dark, a non-party to this lawsuit, appeals the trial court judgment holding her in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the district court through intervenors’ attorney for financial documents belonging to a church. For the following reasons, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This litigation began when Wilfred Joseph, Leroy Ellis, and Bernard Coleman, individually and as Trustee Board Members and Deacons on behalf of New Magnolia Baptist Church (“the Trustees”), filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction, naming Reverend John Scott (pastor of the New Magnolia Baptist Church [“the Church”]) as the defendant. They alleged they had indefinitely suspended Reverend Scott and sought relief including, but not limited to, a temporary restraining order and preliminary/permanent injunction, restraining him from physical abuse or harassment, from violating the indefinite suspension, and prohibiting him from entering the Church.

Thereafter, the Members of the congregation of the Church (collectively “the Members”) filed a motion for leave to intervene and an intervention, seeking a declaratory judgment, among other relief, that the Trustees did not have authority to have Reverend Scott suspended or ousted. The Members also sought injunctive relief, enjoining the Trustees from any control of the Church building, land, bank accounts, and church membership.¹

During discovery, the Members requested that a subpoena duces tecum be issued by the court to Ms. Dark, the Church's secretary. On December 5, 2024, the subpoena duces tecum was sewed on Ms. Dark, individually, seeking from her a copy of any and all bank account statements and canceled checks from the Church from any and all banking institutions; copies of any written minutes of any meetings of the Church membership or deacons; and copies of the notices of those meetings for the time period of June 1, 2024, to the present.² The subpoena duces tecum commanded Ms. Dark to produce the documents to the law office of the Members’ attorney, Mr. William Eroche, on December 19, 2024.

On February 3, 2025, the Members filed a “Motion and Order for Contempt” alleging that Ms. Dark “completely failed or refused to produce cancelled checks as required by the [subpoena] and has failed or refused to produce any bank documents whatsoever from [the] Synergy Bank [Checking Account] and [Savings Account].” The subpoena duces tecum was attached to the motion for contempt.

The Members’ motion came before the court on March 14, 2025. After a hearing during which Ms. Dark testified, the district court issued a “Judgment and Reasons on Intervenors[’] Motion for Contempt” stating:

[I]t is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Alma Dark is hereby held in contempt for failure to respond to Intervenors[’] subpoena duces tecum. She shall serve ten days in the parish jail. This sentence shall be suspended upon the following: ALL records that were subpoenaed shall be given to the Intervenors’ attorney ․ by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 1, 2025 ․ $500.00 in attorney's fees shall be paid to Intervenors by that date and time and all court costs associated with the filing, serving, and hearing of said Rule for Contempt shall be paid to the Clerk of Court by that date and time. Failure of same shall result in the incarceration of Ms. Dark for 10 days in the Terrebonne Parish Detention Center.

Ms. Dark appeals this judgment contending that the district court abused its discretion in finding Ms. Dark, a non-party to the litigation, in contempt of court.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to obey a subpoena may be adjudged in contempt of the court which issued the subpoena. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1357. Violation of Article 1357 is a constructive contempt of court in violation of La. Code Civ. P. art. 224. Seaward v. City of Hammond, 2001-0770 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 38, 40. Article 224 defines a constructive contempt as “any contempt other than a direct one,” and sets forth a number of acts that constitute a constructive contempt, including the following: “[w]ilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court[.]” La. Code Civ. P. art. 224(2). Although a district court has discretion to determine whether to find a person guilty of constructive contempt of court, a finding that a person willfully disobeyed a court order in violation of Article 224(2) must be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court “intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse.” Lang v. Asten, Inc., 2005-1119 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So.2d 453, 454 (per curiam). Proceedings for contempt must be strictly construed, and the law does not favor extending their scope. Estate of Graham v. Levy, 93-0636 93-0134 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/8/94), 636 So.2d 287, 290, writ denied, 94-1202 (La.7/1/94), 639 So.2d 1167.

Non-parties are subject to discovery requests/subpoena duces tecum when certain circumstances are met. In addition to relevance, a plaintiff must have good cause to request the production of documents by a non-party. See LaBarre v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, 2017-0309 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/7/18), 347 So.3d 949, 957; see also La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426. Good cause exists when a plaintiff shows the court's intervention is justified and that an undue burden will not fall on the party who must produce the documents. Id. Stated another way, good cause may be demonstrated where the party shows “the unavailability of the information from other sources, and further, by relating its need [for the discovery] to the issues in dispute.” Bianchi v. Pattison Pontiac Co., 258 So.2d 388, 390 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1972). Because Ms. Dark is a non-party, the Members were required to demonstrate that the records sought are unavailable from other sources; that the records are necessary for the prosecution of the litigation; and that the records relate to the issues in dispute.

The subpoena duces tecum served on Ms. Dark stated in pertinent part:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at [THE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM A. EROCHE] on the 19th day of DECEMBER, 2024, at 10:30 A.M. in the above numbered and titled suit, the following documents or papers:

A. A COPY OF ANY AND ALL BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND CANCELLED CHECKS FROM NEW MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH / THE CONGREGATION OF MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH FROM ANY AND ALL BANKING INSTITUTIONS THAT NEW MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH / THE CONGREGATION OF MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHECKING ACCOUNTS, SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, ETC.) FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF JUNE 1, 2024 TO THE PRESENT.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 1354(A) provides in pertinent part, “A subpoena may order a person to appear and produce at the trial, deposition, or hearing, books, papers, documents, any other tangible things, or electronically stored information, in his possession or under his control, if a reasonably accurate description thereof is given.’’ (Emphasis added.) Additionally, as noted, generally a showing of relevancy and good cause for production has been required in cases where a party seeks production of records from a non-party.

The subpoena duces tecum was served on Ms. Dark as an individual at an address that was not the Church's address ³ and requested documents that belonged to the Church. There was no designation in the subpoena duces tecum to show what authority Ms. Dark had for providing the records of the Church. The testimony during the contempt hearing revealed that Ms. Dark was the Church's secretary, and she apparently had access to some of the documents requested by the Members, as she provided documents to Mr. Eroche's office. While it is not clear from the record that the requested documents were in Ms. Dark's possession or under her control as contemplated by Article 1354(A) or that there was good cause to request the documents from a non-party, she filed no pleadings in response to the subpoena duces tecum or the motion for contempt.

During the contempt hearing, Ms. Dark testified that she provided all the documents she had in response to the subpoena duces tecum to Terri Schwab at Mr. Eroche's office on December 18, 2024, and told Ms. Schwab that if anything else was needed, to please contact her and let her know. Ms. Dark testified that she was not aware any documents were missing until she was served with the rule for contempt and that if the attorney would have contacted her she would “have been more than cooperative.” She testified that the subpoena duces tecum stated that either she turn in the documents or sit for a deposition, and they did not set a deposition, so she “assumed they had what they needed.”

The Members indicated that the bank statements provided by Ms. Dark refer to approximately fourteen checks being written over a six-month period, and that she did not provide the canceled checks. Ms. Dark testified that she did provide one canceled check using the “SNIP Process” to take a screen shot of the document. The Members and the court questioned Ms. Dark as to why she could not have used the same process for the remaining checks. She responded that “[i]t was an overwhelming thing. I thought if he needed more than what I gave them they would have the courtesy—” She did not complete her statement. As for the Synergy Bank savings accounts, Ms. Dark testified that things may have gotten mixed up, but her “intention was to make copies of everything for [Mr. Eroche],” and she was surprised to see that the statement from the Synergy Bank savings account was not in the paperwork she provided in response to the subpoena duces tecum.

In this matter, the district court has discretion to determine whether to find a person guilty of constructive contempt of court, but a finding that a person willfully disobeyed a court order in violation of Article 224(2) must be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse. Ms. Dark, a non-party to the suit, provided several documents to the Members in response to the subpoena duces tecum, and it was undisputed that she told them to let her know if they needed anymore documents. While she may have been seeking some guidance from an attorney, she was unrepresented at the time she was served with the subpoena duces tecum. She provided many documents in response to the subpoena duces tecum, including bank statements and minutes of the meetings. She assumed the Members had what they needed since no deposition was scheduled, and she was unaware that there were documents missing until she received the contempt motion. The contempt motion was much more specific in the description of what documents it suggested that Ms. Dark failed to produce, and the Members could have requested the more specific documents by communicating with Ms. Dark; Ms. Dark never received a phone call or any follow up requesting the documents that the Members suggested were missing. Even considering all of the factual findings as found by the district court, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ms. Dark intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully violated an order of the court. For these reasons, we reverse the judgment finding Ms. Dark in contempt.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court judgment finding Ms. Dark in contempt. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the Members of the Congregation of Magnolia Baptist Church and New Magnolia Baptist Church, Inc.

REVERSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the designated record does not contain the intervention or the transcript of the contempt hearing, both of the documents are in the appellate record addressing the main demand, 2025 CA 1171. Pursuant to Uniform Rules Louisiana, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.14, we reviewed the portions of the 2025 CA 1171 record that are necessary to adequately review the issues raised by Ms. Dark. See _JBrowne v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Development, 2015-0668 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/4/16), 2016 WL 483228, *1, n.2 writ denied, 2016-0442 (La. 4/22/16), 191 So.3d 1044.

2.   Ms. Dark provided the written minutes of the meetings of the Church membership or deacons. This was not an issue in the contempt motion.

3.   In the petition and on the Church letterhead, the Church's address is listed as 427 Highway 311, Shriever, LA. On the subpoena duces tecum, the address was Alma Dark, 2567 West Park Avenue, Gray, LA.

HESTER, J.