Devin James Barnett v. the Domain Companies LLC, Domain Cos. Management LLC, Domain Companies of Louisiana, LLC, Domain South Market, LLC and Xyz Insurance Company

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-0609
• Status: Published
• Author: Lobrano

Opinion

DEVIN JAMES BARNETT * NO. 2025-CA-0609

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

THE DOMAIN COMPANIES * FOURTH CIRCUIT LLC, DOMAIN COS. MANAGEMENT LLC, * STATE OF LOUISIANA DOMAIN COMPANIES OF LOUISIANA, LLC, DOMAIN * SOUTH MARKET, LLC AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY * *******

JCL LOBRANO, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

I respectfully concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the district court’s

judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings. I write separately to

emphasize the importance of allowing reasonable discovery where the relevant

information regarding a defendant’s policies and practices is uniquely within the

control of the corporate defendant.

As the majority correctly notes, Plaintiff-Appellant sought discovery

concerning the safety policies and procedures of the apartment complex, including

corporate documents and a La. C.C.P. art. 1442 deposition of the corporate

representative. A motion to compel this discovery was pending and set for hearing

on the same date as the motion for summary judgment. Despite this procedural

posture, the district court considered only the motion for summary judgment and

dismissed Appellant’s claims without addressing the outstanding discovery

dispute.

This Court has previously cautioned against resolving claims before a

plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to obtain information that is solely within the

possession of a corporate defendant. In Ripp v. Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc., 25-

0170 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/4/25), --- So.3d ----, 2025 WL 3490796, this Court

recognized that when evidence regarding a corporation’s policies and procedures is

1 controlled by the corporation itself, discovery must be permitted before the merits

of the claim are adjudicated. As we explained in that case:

At this juncture, Plaintiff need only allege facts that, if proven, could support the existence of a duty and breach within Louisiana’s duty/risk framework. Evidence bearing on foreseeability, prior incidents, and Walgreens’ security decisions lies largely within the defendant’s control. Denying discovery at this stage would effectively insulate those facts from examination.

Id., 25-0170, p. 7, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2025 WL 3490796, *4.

This principle is particularly important in cases involving allegations that a

corporate entity failed to implement reasonable safety measures. Corporate

defendants often possess exclusive access to internal policies, training materials,

security procedures, and incident response protocols that may bear directly on

whether reasonable care was exercised. Allowing summary judgment before such

discovery occurs risks insulating those policies from judicial scrutiny.

In the case sub judice, the plaintiff specifically sought discovery concerning

security policies, prior criminal activity in the area, and the procedures governing

the complex’s pet policy that allegedly required residents to walk their pets outside

the premises. These subjects fall squarely within the type of corporate information

that may only be obtained through discovery.

Transparency in corporate practices is an essential component of

justice. Courts should not permit parties that control critical information to shield

those policies from scrutiny while simultaneously seeking dismissal of claims.

Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the district court abused its

discretion in granting summary judgment without first addressing the pending

motion to compel and without allowing the requested discovery to proceed. For

these reasons, I respectfully concur.