APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 82, 808, HONORABLE
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL, JUDGE, AND HONORABLE MAX N. TOBIAS, JR.
JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "E" AND HONORABLE ROBERT J.
KLEES, JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "X"
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, BRYAN BEDI Laura J. Todaro
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, MELINDA PRICE, WIFE OF BRYAN
BEDI Melinda Price Bedi
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE, MARGARET
MCKENZIE AND MELISSA MARTINDALE Robert L. Raymond
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE AND MARGARET
MCKENZIE Chester C. Stetfelt
composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and
John J. Molaison, Jr.
J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE
Melinda Price Bedi, in proper person, filed the instant
appeal which challenges several rulings of the trial court
related to an underlying domestic proceeding. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
first take note of appellant's prior appeal, 18-CA-476,
which was dismissed by this Court as abandoned by an Order
dated April 10, 2019. In that appeal, appellant had filed a
motion to supplement the record with the files of three court
reporters based upon an allegation that there was
"missing verbiage" left out of the official
transcripts of the proceedings. In denying appellant's
motion on October 17, 2018, we found that she had not
demonstrated any inaccuracies or misstatements in the record.
18-CA-476 was pending, appellant filed a second appeal (the
instant appeal), which was designated as
19-CA-138. In the record for 19-CA-138, there is a
trial court judgment dated October 9, 2018, which pertained
to an Ex Parte Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition for
Records Only and Subpoenas Duces Tecum filed by the court
reporters who had transcribed various proceedings in the
matter. While the judgment partially granted the motion to
quash, it also ordered appellant to identify by volume, page
and line, which portions of the official transcript she
claimed were inaccurate. In turn, the court reporters were to
compare appellant's allegations to their own shorthand
notes or any recordings they had in their possession. If, in
fact, there were corrections made by the court reporters to
any portion of the transcripts, the court reporters were then
ordered to send the amended versions to the Clerk of Court
for the 29th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of St. Charles.
April 9, 2019, this Court exercised its supervisory
jurisdiction and ordered the trial court to amend the October
9, 2018 judgment to "include the appropriate and
necessary decretal language within fifteen (15) days of this
order." The trial court amended the judgment on that
same date. The amended judgment stated that the trial court
was ruling in favor of the court reporters to the extent that
appellant was ordered to specifically identify which portions
of the transcript she believed were incorrectly transcribed.
The amended judgment further clarified that the trial court
ruled in favor of appellant insofar as the court reporters
were ordered to take appellant's allegations of the
incomplete transcripts and compare these to their own notes,
in whatever form they existed, within 72 hours, and to
transmit any corrections to the Clerk of Court for the 29th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles.
Counsel for the court reporters was further ordered to advise
appellant "of the results of their searches for missing
portions of the transcript(s) and shall further advise when
each of them delivers any missing portions(s) of transcripts
to the trial court's clerk of court."
MOTION FOR APPEAL IN CASE 19-CA-138
appellant's motion for appeal, which was filed in the
trial court on October 17, 2018, appellant specifically
challenged the trial court's partial grant of the court
reporters' motion to quash, as well as the trial
court's decision to schedule a hearing on appellant's
two ex parte motions she claims were filed on September 10,