2019-CA-0309 Precedential Limited Rehearing Granted Processed

Timothy L. Jarquin v. Danny R. Blanks, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member and Manager of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; Barlow J. Cook, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; James R. Washington, III, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; And Mary Leblanc, Individually and in Her Capacity as Director of Human Resources of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · Filed September 11, 2019

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., August 21, 2019

Opinion text

TIMOTHY L. JARQUIN * NO. 2019-CA-0309

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

DANNY R. BLANKS, * FOURTH CIRCUIT
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER * STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND MANAGER OF
PONTCHARTRAIN *******
PARTNERS, L.L.C.; BARLOW
J. COOK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF
PONTCHARTRAIN
PARTNERS, L.L.C.; JAMES R.
WASHINGTON, III,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF
PONTCHARTRAIN
PARTNERS, L.L.C.; AND
MARY LEBLANC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF
HUMAN RESOURCES OF
PONTCHARTRAIN
PARTNERS, L.L.C.

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2017-10461, DIVISION “G-11”
Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge
******
Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods
******
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods,
Judge Paula A. Brown)

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Stephen D. Marx
P.J. Stakelum III
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN. WILLIAMS, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES,
L.L.P.
One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
Metairie, LA 70001

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Jason R. Anders
ANDERS LAW FIRM
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

On application for rehearing, Timothy Jarquin, Appellee, seeks amendment

of this Court’s August 21, 2019 opinion. Appellant, Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C,

had appealed the district court’s December 27, 2018 judgment denying its motion

to quash, arguing that Appellee, who had filed a subpoena duces tecum, was

seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege. On appeal, this

Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for additional analysis of

the attorney-client privilege claim.

We grant Appellee’s application for rehearing for the limited purpose of

clarifying that our prior opinion vacating the judgment is directed only to that

portion of the judgment denying the motion to quash despite an arguable claim of

attorney-client privilege to the information sought. In all other respects, the

original judgment shall stand, as Appellant did not raise any other claims on appeal

apart from privilege.

1