TIMOTHY L. JARQUIN
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.
FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-10461,
DIVISION "G-11" Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge
Stephen D. Marx P.J. Stakelum III CHEHARDY, SHERMAN.
WILLIAMS, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. COUNSEL FOR
R. Anders ANDERS LAW FIRM COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina
Bartholomew-Woods, Judge Paula A. Brown
Pontchartrain Partners, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as "PPLLC"), seeks review of the district
court's December 27, 2018 judgment denying its motion to
quash, which it filed in response to a request for subpoena
duces tecum filed by Appellee, Timothy
Jarquin. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the
judgment of the district court, and remand this matter to the
district court for specific findings on the applicability of
the attorney-client privilege to the facts of this case.
matter has been before this Court a number of times to
address different issues. The relevant factual background is
set forth in this Court's opinion Jarquin v.
Blanks, 2018-0157 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/15/18), 254 So.3d
10. Of note, the named defendants in the lawsuit are all
members of PPLLC, with James Washington, III, serving as
general counsel to the company.
December 18, 2017, Appellee filed a request for subpoena
duces tecum directed to the records custodian of
Appellant, a non-party to the litigation. Therein, Appellee
requested production of documents and things as described in
thirty-five separate paragraphs. Many of the requests
specifically name Mr. Washington.
responded to the subpoena with a motion to quash filed on
January 4, 2018. While the motion to quash argued several
bases in support of quashal, Appellant briefed only one such
basis on appeal; that is, the subpoena calls for the
production of records potentially protected by the
district court held a hearing on the motion on November 30,
2018. At the hearing, the district found that Appellee was
entitled to all the documents requested. The judgment was
reduced to writing on December 27, 2018.
question of whether an attorney-client relationship exists is
a question of fact, and thus subject to manifest error
analysis. Keith v. Keith, 48, 919, pp. 9-10 (La.App.
2 Cir. 5/15/14), 140 So.3d 1202, 1208-09. A trial court's
ruling on a motion to quash is reviewed for abuse of