Ernest Jones and Dominica Jones Versus Alexander Stag and Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange

ERNEST JONES AND DOMINICA JONES NO. 24-C-488

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER STAG AND PRIVILEGE COURT OF APPEAL
UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA

January 28, 2025

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE ALEXANDER STAG AND PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH
OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE,
DIVISION "A", NUMBER 81,513

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT DENIED

Relators, Alexander Stag and Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange

(“PURE”), seek review of the trial court’s September 26, 2024 judgment that granted

the motion to compel the corporate deposition of PURE, filed by Respondents,

Ernest and Dominica Jones, and denied Relators’ motion for protective order. They

argue that allowance of the corporate deposition to proceed is a direct contraction of

the purely procedural purpose of the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, La. R.S.

22:1269, is unduly burdensome and harassing, and will force it to disgorge

information, including litigation strategy, privileged information and internal claims

handling information that is of no significance. They further argue that

Respondents’ discovery requests unabashedly seeks information that is protected by

privilege and/or reflects the mental impression of counsel, seeks the premature

disgorgement of the defense’s witnesses and exhibits, and seeks information that is

not relevant. They contend that a protective order must be issued to prevent an abuse

of the discovery process by Respondents.

In ruling on discovery matters, the trial court is vested with broad discretion,

and an appellate court should not disturb such rulings absent a clear abuse of

discretion. Danos v. Minnard, 19-268 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/28/19), 279 So.3d 486,

490.

Upon review, on the showing made, we find no clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court, nor a sufficient basis upon which to disturb the trial court’s rulings.

Accordingly, the writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 28th day of January, 2025.

MEJ
JGG
JJM

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 01/28/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-C-488
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Vercell Fiffie (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Tori S. Bowling (Relator)

MAILED
Gilbert V. Andry, IV (Respondent) Sydnee D. Menou (Relator)
Attorney at Law Brandi A. Barze (Relator)
829 Baronne Street Attorneys at Law
New Orleans, LA 70113 Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, LA 70821