
    Harry J. HART, Individually d/b/a C & H Management, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rachael S. HART, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16635-CA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 5, 1984.
    J. Stacey Freeman, Bossier City, for plaintiff-appellant.
    Love, Rigby, Dehan, Love & McDaniel by Joe Cordill, Jr., Shreveport, and William J. Gardner, Longview, Tex., for defendants-in-rule, appellees, Rachel S. Hart, Ryan-Hart, Inc., Dr. Henry D. Smith and Ruth Smith.
    . Charles Rowe, Bossier City, for petitioner-in-rule, appellee, Candi Hart.
    ' Before PRICE, MARVIN and SEXTON, JJ.
   MARVIN, Judge.

Mr. Hart, who is embroiled in divorce litigation with his wife in Texas, appeals a judgment denying his demands in a rule to show cause against his wife’s parents why they should not be cast for $625 costs incurred by him because of their failure to appear, when subpoenaed, for the purpose of giving depositions.

Appellant erroneously bases his rule on CCP Art. 1473. The sanctions of that article, however, do not apply to a deponent who is not a party or who is not designated to be a deponent by an organization that is a party. Compare Art. 1447.

Appellant’s in-laws are not parties. Hart has no cause of action against them for his expenses caused by their alleged disobedience. CCP Arts. 927, 934. A witness-deponent who disobeys a subpoena for a deposition is subject only to the contempt authority of the court. See CCP Art. 1357 and comment (d) thereunder. Appellant’s in-laws were not cited for contempt.

At appellant’s cost, the judgment denying and dismissing his demands is AFFIRMED.  