The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE ROMAN CATHOLIC CIVIL ACTION
CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE NO: 22-1740
OF NEW ORLEANS c/w 22-4101
(Bankruptcy No. 20-10846) SECTION: T (2)
OPINION
These consolidated appeals arise out of two Orders, issued by the Bankruptcy Court on
June 7, 2022, and October 11, 2022,1 finding that Appellant, Richard C. Trahant (“Trahant”),
violated the court’s Protective Order and imposing sanctions against him for disclosing
confidential information to third parties. For the reasons below, the Bankruptcy Court’s Orders are
AFFIRMED.2
BACKGROUND
The underlying Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceeding was initiated on May 1, 2020, by
Appellee, the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans (the “Archdiocese”).3
Thereafter, the Office of the United States Trustee (“UST”) appointed the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) on May 20, 2020.4 Among those appointed to the
Committee, and appearing in the Bankruptcy Proceeding as creditors, were four individuals who
filed lawsuits in state court asserting sexual abuse claims against clergy of the Archdiocese.5
1 See R1 Doc. 1-2 (No. 22-1740) & R2 Doc. 1-2 (No. 22-4101). The Court consolidated these appeals on February 10,
2023, for all purposes. R. Doc. 76 (22-1740). The use herein of “R1 Doc.__” refers to record documents found in Case
Number 22-1740 and “R2 Doc.__” refers to record documents found in Case Number 22-4101.
2 Having examined the briefs and the record, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8019(b)(3).
3 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 404.
4 R2 Doc. 2-1, p. 40.
5 R2 Doc. 2-2, pp. 1-2.
Trahant is counsel of record for each of these four Committee Members in their respective state
court actions.6
On August 3, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Protective Order governing the use
and disclosure of “Protected Material” produced in discovery.7 “Protected Material” is defined by
the Protective Order as any document produced in discovery that has been designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by the producing
party.8 The producing party may designate a document as “CONFIDENTIAL” when it contains
“Confidential Information,” meaning “any non-public information provided by a Party wherein
such information is not public or available to the general public.”9 Further, the requesting party
“shall be responsible for safeguarding all produced materials and information designated as
‘CONFIDENTIAL’ in accordance with the provisions of th[e] Protective Order.”10 Paragraph 7 of
the Protective Order limits the disclosure or dissemination of any “CONFIDENTIAL” materials
to purposes related directly to the Bankruptcy Proceeding and expressly prohibits their use “for
any other purpose, including without limitation any business, competitive, governmental,
commercial, administrative, publicity, press release, marketing, or research purpose or function,
or in any other legal case, lawsuit, proceeding, investigation, or otherwise except as expressly
provided herein, or as ordered by the Court.”11 Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order defines the
prohibited uses of Protected Materials:
Any Protected Material, and all information derived from Protected
Material (including, but not limited to, all testimony, deposition, or
otherwise, that refers, reflects or otherwise discusses any
6 R1 Doc. 1-4, p. 3; R2 Doc. 2-2, pp. 1-2.
7 R1 Doc. 33-2, pp. 23-43. The Protective Order was subsequently amended and supplemented on January 25, 2021,
May 24, 2021, and October 18, 2021, to meet the needs of the case as it progressed. See R1 Doc. 33-2, pp. 51-71, pp.
110-114, pp. 127-131.
8 R2 Doc. 2-2, p. 10.
9 R2 Doc. 2-2, p. 11, ¶ 4.
10 R2 Doc. 2-2, p. 11, ¶ 4.
11 R Doc. 2-2, pp.15-16, ¶ 7.
information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL
– ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under this Protective Order), shall
not be used, directly or indirectly, by any person for any business,
commercial or competitive purposes, or for any purpose whatsoever
other than for Authorized Uses.12
Importantly, Paragraph 6 of the Protective Order outlines the procedure for challenging the
“CONFIDENTIAL” designation of any materials produced in discovery and having the
designation removed, if warranted.13 To that end, Paragraph 10 emphasizes that any disclosure of
Protected Material beyond the methods set forth in the Protective Order is strictly prohibited.14
On December 3, 2021, the Archdiocese produced certain “CONFIDENTIAL” materials to
the Committee in response to discovery requests in the Bankruptcy Proceeding.15 The materials
contained documents related to proceedings held before the Archdiocese’s Internal Review Board
(“IRB”), which investigates allegations of sexual abuse made against clergy.16 On January 4, 2022,
during a phone conference, Committee Counsel informed Counsel for the Archdiocese about its
concerns that a priest identified in the recently-produced IRB records was currently serving as the
chaplain at a local high school and could be a danger to students.17 The Committee requested that
the priest be immediately removed from his position at the school.18 In turn, Counsel for the
Archdiocese contacted its client and learned that the priest had been placed on medical leave and
was no longer working at the high school.19 Counsel for the Archdiocese also learned that an
unidentified third party had recently contacted the high school to make it aware of the priest in
question, thus indicating that a breach of the Protective Order had apparently occurred.20
12 R2 Doc. 2-2, p. 20, ¶ 9.
13 R2 Doc. 2-2, pp. 12-15, ¶ 6.
14 R2 Doc. 2-2, p. 21, ¶ 10.
15 R2 Doc. 2-3, p. 51, ¶ 13.
16 R2 Doc. 2-3, p. 51, ¶ 13.
17 R2 Doc. 2-3, p. 51, ¶ 14.
18 R2 Doc. 2-3, pp. 51-52, ¶¶ 14-15.
19 R2 Doc. 2-3, p. 52, ¶ 16.
20 R2 Doc. 2-3, pp. 52-53, ¶ 19.
Thereafter, an article appeared on NOLA.com providing details about the priest in relation to the
allegations contained in the IRB documents.21
On January 20, 2022, the Archdiocese filed a Motion for Entry of an Order: (A) Compelling
the Tort Committee and/or its Counsel to Answer Identified Questions, and (B) Setting an
Evidentiary Hearing on Sanction for Violation of Protective Order (the “Motion to Compel”) on
January 20, 2022.22 The Bankruptcy Court held sealed status conferences with counsel for the
Archdiocese and the Committee on January 27, 2022, February 11, 2022, March 11, 2022, and
April 14, 2022, to determine the best course of action for identifying the source of the apparent
information leak.23 During the February 11, 2022 status conference, it was decided that joint
discovery would be issued to the high school seeking the identity of the individual who had
contacted them.24
Discovery responses from the high school were received and discussed with the
Bankruptcy Court at the April 14, 2022 status conference.25 The responses revealed that on
December 31, 2021, by text message, and on January 4, 2022, by telephone, Trahant contacted the
principal of the high school inquiring about the priest at issue and discussed the allegations against
him.26
The day before that status conference, on April 13, 2022, the Committee filed written
declarations under seal, including a declaration by Trahant dated April 12, 2022, to show,
ostensibly, that no individual associated with the Committee had any knowledge of, or role in, the
leak.27 In his Declaration, Trahant states that he submitted the Declaration in connection with the
21 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 403.
22 R2 Doc. 2-3, pp. 46-58.
23 See R2 Doc. 2-4, p. 4; R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 168-220, pp. 221-53, and pp. 254-329, respectively.
24 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 220.
25 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 254.
26 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 256-57.
27 R2 Doc. 2-6, pp. 142-44; R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 330-33.
Archdiocese’s Motion to Compel and acknowledges that he received and reviewed “most, if not
all” of the documents produced by the Archdiocese in the Bankruptcy Proceeding.28 Trahant’s
Declaration further states that he “first became aware of the credible finding of the sexual abuse
of a minor by [the priest] on or about December 31, 2022” and that he “took it upon [him]self to
contact [the high school principal] for what I believed (and still believe) to be a legitimate
compelling reason – to protect minors. I wanted to make sure that a priest who admitted to sexually
abusing a minor was no longer permitted to be on a high school campus.”29 Trahant admits that
his first contact with the high school principal occurred on December 31, 2021, via text message
and was followed by conversations beginning on January 4, 2022, with more conversations and
text messages thereafter.30 Despite disclosing the priest’s name to the high school principal, a clear
violation of the Protective Order, Trahant’s Declaration purports to defend his actions by declaring
that he:
• did not provide any “confidential” documents to or discuss the
contents of any “confidential” documents with [the high school
principal];31
• did not disclose or disseminate any documents or reveal the
contents of any documents to anyone associated with [the high
school] regarding [the priest] at any time from December 31,
2021, to the date of this Declaration, nor did I ask or cause any
other person to do so;32
• did not disclose or disseminate any documents marked in any
way confidential, the contents of documents, or any other
information produced by the Debtor to [the reporter] or anyone
associated with the Advocate, the Times-Picayune,
NOLA.com;33 and
28 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 330-31, ¶¶ 2-4.
29 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 331, ¶ 7.
30 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 332, ¶¶ 9-10.
31 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 332, ¶ 10.
32 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 332, ¶ 11.
33 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 333, ¶ 15.
• never provided, disclosed, or disseminated any sealed or
confidential documents produced by the Debtor or any
information included in those documents to any person other
than members of the Committee, their counsel, or the
Committee’s bankruptcy professionals.34
In light of these troubling discoveries, on April 25, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court ordered
the UST to investigate the breach and to prepare and submit a report of its findings by June 3,
2022.35 The UST filed its Report (the “UST Report”) under seal with the Bankruptcy Court on
June 3, 2022.36 The UST Report was accompanied by 78 sworn declarations, 18 transcripts of
sworn examinations provided under Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, one
transcript and one summary of two unsworn telephonic interviews, and documents produced to the
UST pursuant to Rule 2004, including telephone logs, text messages, e-mails, and letters.37
Trahant’s Rule 2004 deposition was among these supporting documents and his testimony,
unsurprisingly, revealed additional Protective Order violations.38
Trahant was confronted with his Sworn Declaration and the text messages he exchanged
with the high school principal during the deposition. Trahant testified that he contacted the
principal, who is also his cousin, on December 31, 2021, and inquired about the priest by name.39
Trahant added that the principal, “immediately knew – simply based on my question, he knew
what the inference was.”40 The deposition testimony further confirmed Trahant disclosed the
nature of the allegations against the priest in subsequent communications with the principal.41
Trahant was also questioned about an email that he sent to a local reporter on January 1, 2022.42
34 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 333, ¶ 16.
35 R2 Doc. 2-7, pp. 22-24.
36 R1 Doc. 33-2 p. 543 (SEALED); R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 411.
37 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 411-12.
38 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 334-99.
39 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 333-44 (Depo. pp. 36-39).
40 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 344 (Depo. p. 39).
41 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 351-53 (Depo. pp. 66-76).
42 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 345 (Depo. p. 42).
The subject line of the email contained only the name of the priest.43 The body of the message
read: “Keep this guy on your radar. He is currently the chaplain at [the high school].”44 Trahant
testified that he knew the reporter had “been deeply involved in reporting on the clergy abuse
crisis” and sent the email for the purpose of “alerting him, without telling him anything, clearly,
keep this guy on your radar. This is where he is.”45
After reviewing the UST Report and accompanying evidence, the Bankruptcy Court issued
an Order on June 7, 2022 (the “June 7, 2022 Order”), finding that Trahant had knowingly and
willfully violated the Protective Order.46 The Bankruptcy Court precluded Trahant from further
participating in the Bankruptcy Proceeding as personal counsel to Committee members and, as a
result, removed his individual clients from serving on the Committee.47 The June 7, 2022 Order
indicated that a separate Order to Show cause would be issued “to determine appropriate sanctions
for Trahant’s disclosure of confidential information in violation of this Court’s Protective Order.”48
Trahant appealed the June 7, 2022 Order to this Court on June 10, 2022.49
On June 13, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order to Show Cause setting a hearing
for Trahant to explain why he should not be sanctioned for violating the Protective Order.50 The
Show Cause Order also required the UST to provide the UST Report and all of its exhibits to
Trahant and his counsel in preparation for the hearing.51 The Show Cause Order further instructed
counsel for the Archdiocese and the Committee to compile invoices “identifying attorney and
43 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 345 (Depo. p. 42).
44 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 345 (Depo. pp. 42-43).
45 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 345 (Depo. P.43).
46 R1 Doc. 1-4.
47 R1 Doc. 1-4.
48 R1 Doc. 1-4, p. 5.
49 R1 Doc. 33-2, pp. 569-71.
50 R1 Doc. 33-2, pp. 586-88.
51 R1 Doc. 33-2, p. 588.
paralegal time spent on services related to” the Motion to Compel.52 Trahant filed “Objections to
Order to Show Cause and to Imposition of Additional Sanctions” on August 8, 2022.53 In his
objections Trahant argued that the June 7, 2022 Order was improper because he had not been
provided with adequate due process before he was found in contempt.54
The Show Cause Hearing was held by the Bankruptcy Court on August 22, 2022.55 During
the proceeding, Trahant was represented by counsel, allowed to present argument, evidence, and
offered his own testimony under oath.56 During the hearing, he once again confirmed his
contemptuous conduct, but still asserted that he had not violated the Protective Order. At the
conclusion of the Show Cause Hearing, the Bankruptcy Court took the matter under advisement.57
On October 11, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (the
October 11, 2022 Order) imposing sanctions against Trahant in the amount of $400,000 for his
Protective Order violations.58 Trahant appealed the October 11, 2022 Order to this Court on
October 21, 2022.59
On February 10, 2023, this Court consolidated the appeals on the grounds that they involve
identical parties and intertwined factual and legal issues.60 The issues raised by Trahant in these
consolidated appeals fall under two inquiries: (1) whether Trahant was deprived of adequate
procedural due process; and (2) whether the sanctions levied against Trahant were warranted and
just.
52 R1 Doc. 33-2, p. 588. The invoices were filed with the Bankruptcy Court from June 23, 2022, to September 14,
2022. See R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 417.
53 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 27-36.
54 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 27-36.
55 R2 Doc. 2-11 pp. 81-141.
56 R2 Doc. 2-11 pp. 81-141.
57 R2 Doc. 2-11 p. 140.
58 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 400-429. The Bankruptcy Court reached the $400,000 amount by reducing the $760,884.73 in
total fees incurred by counsel for the Archdiocese and Committee by approximately 50%.
59 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 430-32.
60 R. Doc. 76 (22-1740).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court has jurisdiction over these consolidated appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)
because, collectively, the appeals arise from a final order of contempt and imposing sanctions
against Trahant.61
When reviewing the findings of a bankruptcy court, the district courts act in their appellate
capacity and apply the same standard of review as that of the court of appeals when reviewing a
district court’s action.62 A district court reviews findings of contempt and imposition of sanctions
for abuse of discretion.63 A court abuses its discretion when it “(1) relies on clearly erroneous
factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the
facts.”64 The lower court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo.65 “Whether an alleged contemnor was afforded due process is a question of
law…review[ed] de novo.”66
Trahant Was Provided Ample Due Process
Trahant contends the June 7, 2022 Order violated his due process rights because he was
not provided with notice and the opportunity to be heard before he was found in contempt and
precluded from participating in the Bankruptcy Proceeding. “The fundamental requisite of due
61 Although the Archdiocese originally objected to this Court’s jurisdiction over Trahant’s appeal of the Bankruptcy
Court’s June 7, 2022 Order, it concedes the objections were remedied when the Court consolidated these appeals. See
R. Doc. 82, p. 3 (22-1740).
62 In re Perry, 345 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2003); Matter of Glenn, 900 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2018).
63 Waste Mgmt. of Wash., Inc. v. Kattler, 776 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 2015); Goldin v. Bartholomew, 166 F.3d 710,
722 (5th Cir. 1999).
64 June Med. Servs., LLC v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bradley on Behalf of AJW v. Ackal,
954 F.3d 216, 224 (5th Cir. 2020)).
65 Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 2000).
66 Waste Mgmt., 776 F.3d at 339.
process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”67 Where an alleged contemnor is provided notice
and the opportunity to be heard before he is sanctioned, there has been no denial of due process.68
Despite taking issue with the June 7, 2022 Order, Trahant acknowledges the Bankruptcy
Court was empowered to act sua sponte pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to take any action or make
“any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to
prevent an abuse of process.”69 Trahant continues that, regardless of the authority conveyed by §
105(a), the Bankruptcy Court did not have the ability to “punish a person for contempt or impose
sanctions without reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(a),
notice and a hearing under 11 U.S.C. § 1004(a)(4), or due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”70 While the Court agrees with Trahant’s recitation of the
law on this point, it cannot agree that Trahant was subject to punishment for contempt or assessed
with sanctions without notice or the opportunity to defend himself.
A thorough review of the record reveals Trahant was aware of the Protective Order and his
obligations to abide by it before the document production in December 2021. Trahant was also
aware that an apparent information leak had occurred in early January 2022. Indeed, as counsel
for several Committee Members, Trahant provided a sworn declaration stating he did not breach
of the Protective Order even though he simultaneously admitted to providing the priest’s name to
the high school principal. These inconsistent statements within his Declaration represent Trahant’s
understanding that he could be the “target” of the investigation and a concerted effort to defend
his actions and explain why he believed they were permissible. Thereafter, the UST thoroughly
67 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
68 See In the Matter of Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc., 108 F.3d 609, 613-14 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing International
Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994)).
69 R. Doc. 79, p. 33 (22-1740).
70 R. Doc. 79, p. 33 (22-1740) (internal quotes omitted).
investigated the breach, which included written discovery to Trahant and the taking of his
deposition. During his deposition Trahant was represented by counsel, who specifically observed
that Trahant was “clearly being looked at as a potential person who violated the Court’s protective
order.”71 The Court finds Trahant’s contention that he, an experienced attorney, was not provided
sufficient notice or the opportunity to be heard before the June 7, 2022 Order to be disingenuous
at best.
The Bankruptcy Court determined, for good reason, that Trahant was at least one source of
the leak and issued its June 7, 2022 Order finding him in contempt. At this point, Trahant had
enjoyed more than enough due process for the Bankruptcy Court to impose sanctions, but it did
not. Instead, Trahant would later be given additional opportunities to be heard and the Bankruptcy
Court merely precluded Trahant from further participating in the Bankruptcy Proceeding. The
Bankruptcy Court took appropriate steps to “enforce…court orders or rules…[and] prevent an
abuse of process” as it was empowered to do under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The Court finds that the
need for the Bankruptcy Court at that time to take immediate action and remove Trahant was
warranted by the circumstances. As stated by the Bankruptcy Court, the action was necessary “to
protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process, to guard the rights of all parties in interest, and to
preserve the trust in the confidentiality of mediation (which was due to begin on June 8, 2022).”72
The Bankruptcy Court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in acting pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
105(a).
Even if a plausible argument could be made that the June 7, 2022 Order infringed upon
Trahant’s due process rights, which the Court finds is assuredly not the case, any conceivable
procedural infirmities were cured by the subsequent chain of events. Following the issuance of the
71 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 372 (Depo. p. 152).
72 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 416.
June 7, 2022 Order, the Bankruptcy Court issued a Show Cause Order, which provided Trahant
with additional notice and the opportunity to be heard before sanctions were levied against him.
The Bankruptcy Court ordered that Trahant be provided with the UST’s Report and the attached
materials so that he could prepare for the Show Cause Hearing. Trahant filed written objections to
the impending proceeding into the record. When the Show Cause Hearing was held on August 22,
2022, Trahant was represented by counsel and offered additional objections to the proceeding and
the June 7, 2022 Order. Trahant also provided sworn testimony and engaged in thorough discourse
with the Bankruptcy Court about the evidence against him. Trahant did not controvert the UST’s
findings in any meaningful way. Rather, Trahant’s testimony confirmed the findings of the UST’s
investigation and he again admitted to disclosing the identity of the priest to the high school’s
principal and the reporter. Trahant further acknowledged that the priest’s identity and details of
the allegations against him were not in the public domain at the time he disseminated the
information.73 After the August 22, 2022 Hearing, he was afforded more than one month’s time to
submit briefing on any issue, including the invoices filed by the Committee and Archdiocese,
before the October 11, 2022 Order was entered. In sum, the Court finds without hesitation that
Trahant was not deprived of any due process rights in the proceedings below and, in fact, was
provided with many opportunities to be heard before a finding of contempt and the imposition of
sanctions.
The Bankruptcy Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Imposing Sanctions Against Trahant
Trahant’s assertion that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to render the October 11,
2022 Order is misplaced. Although this Court allowed Trahant’s appeal of the June 7, 2022 Order
to remain pending, the August 22, 2022 Hearing and the Bankruptcy Court’s October 11, 2022
73 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 116:5-25.
Order did not alter the status of the issues already on appeal.74 Rather, the October 11, 2022 Order
brought finality to the issues now properly before the Court. The Bankruptcy Court did not err in
continuing on with Trahant’s contempt proceeding after the June 7, 2022 Order was appealed.
Trahant next argues the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions
against him because there was no evidence of bad faith or willfulness in his conduct. This is
incorrect.
Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code gives a bankruptcy court the power to, sua sponte,
take any action or make any “determination necessary or appropriate to enforce of implement court
orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”75 Included in those powers is the prerogative to
issue civil contempt orders.76 Bankruptcy courts also have inherent powers to impose sanctions
where bad faith or willful abuse of process has occurred to ensure the orderly and expeditious
disposition of their dockets.77 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) further endorses the
imposition of sanctions, including attorneys’ fees, for protective order violations.78
Here, a thorough review of the record reveals that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact
as to Trahant’s knowing and willful actions were correct and should not be disturbed. Trahant’s
testimony at the August 22, 2022 Hearing confirmed his awareness of the Protective Order and the
materials it was intended to protect. He knew the appropriate process as provided in the Protective
Order for challenging the “CONFIDENTIAL” designation of any document and failed to observe
it. Trahant, thus, knowingly subverted that process and disseminated “Protected Materials” to third
74 See Dayton Independent School District v. U.S. Mineral Products Co., 906 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1990) (“When one
aspect of a case is before the appellate court on interlocutory review, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over
that aspect of the case. A district court does not have the power to ‘alter the status of the case as it rests before the
Court of Appeals’.” (quoting Coastal Corp. v. Texas Eastern Corp., 869 F.2d 817, 820–21 (5th Cir. 1989)).
75 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).
76 In the Matter of Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc., 108 F.3d 609, 613 (5th Cir. 1997).
77 In re Carroll, 850 F.3d 811, 815 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Scaife v. Associated Air Ctr. Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 411 (5th
Cir. 1996)); In re Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hosp., L.L.C., 26 F.4th 285, 292 (5th Cir. 2022).
78 Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 685 F.2d 486, 488 (5th Cir. 2012).
parties. Trahant’s contention that he firmly believed he was not violating the Protective Order is
not convincing because it is directly at odds with his sworn testimony. Indeed, Trahant testified
that he disagreed with the “CONFIDENTIAL” designation of the materials at issue and contacted
the high school principal and the reporter with the intent of “planting a seed” about the priest.79 A
review of Trahant’s text messages with the high school principal undeniably shows that Trahant
knowingly and intentionally disclosed confidential information to him.80 The uncontroverted facts
provide more than a sufficient basis to conclude Trahant willfully and knowingly violated the
Protective Order constituting bad faith on his part.
The $400,000 in sanctions imposed by the Bankruptcy Court are reasonable and justified
under the circumstances. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the Archdiocese and the Committee to
file their respective investigation-related fee invoices. There is no indication in the record that
Trahant ever objected to any of the invoices filed. In any event, the Bankruptcy Court
independently reviewed the invoices for reasonableness using the well-accepted “lodestar
analysis,” and considered the complexities of the litigation, the number of attorneys involved, and
prevailing rates. The Bankruptcy Court was satisfied that the fees incurred were reasonable.81
Despite finding the billing entries to be justified, and although not required to do so, the
Bankruptcy Court reduced the total amount of the sanctions by approximately 50% to arrive at the
$400,000 sanction imposed.82 The Bankruptcy Court went to great lengths to emphasize that the
sanctions were intended “to serve as a deterrent for any attorney or law firm who might be tempted
79 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 119-124.
80 R1 Doc. 37-4 (SEALED).
81 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 426-27. “Once a court orders that a party must pay reasonable fees and expenses as a sanction,
the lodestar analysis is then used to determine the proper amount of fees ‘by multiplying the reasonable number of
hours expended in defending the suit by the reasonable hourly rates for the participating lawyers.’” In re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL NO. 2179, 2021 WL 4192060, at
*2 (E.D. La. Sept. 15, 2021) (quoting Skidmore Energy v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2006)).
82 R2 Doc. 2-11, pp. 427-28.
to violate the Court’s discovery orders, but also to preserve the integrity of the bankruptcy process
and protect it from abuse.”*? Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in Trahant’s contention that
the sanctions were punitive in any manner. Trahant’s position that the sanctions against him rise
to the level of criminal in nature are, therefore, meritless. The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its
discretion when imposing sanctions against Trahant.
CONCLUSION
The record and undisputed facts demonstrate that Trahant, an experienced attorney, knew
he was bound by the Protective Order and deliberately chose to violate it. What is worse, Trahant
continues to suggest that he did not violate the Protective Order and that his disregard for its
protocols was justified. The Court finds Trahant’s position to be inexplicable, especially
considering he is an officer of the Court. This Court has no reservations in finding that Trahant’s
conduct was contemptuous, wasteful, and warranted the imposition of sanctions. Trahant has been
afforded the opportunity to be heard and has presented no evidence to support a contrary
conclusion.
AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 27th day of March 2023.
GREG GERARD GUIDRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
83 R2 Doc. 2-11, p. 426.
15