Case ID: so3d_243/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hughes, J., would grant the writ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond SCHULTZ v. COX OPERATING, LLC and Terry Vincent
    NO. 2018-C-0397
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2018
    WEIMER, J., additionally concurs in the denial and assigns reasons.
    The appellate court errantly made explicit findings that Timothy Hassinger, counsel for Greene's Energy, LLC failed to respond to communications from plaintiff's counsel regarding discovery. Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute the representations to this court by Mr. Hassinger that the relevant communications were sent by plaintiff's counsel to an email address that was not Mr. Hassinger's email address. Mr. Hassinger supports his representations to this court with printed copies of the emails from the record on appeal. Accordingly, I conclude that the appellate court's findings regarding Mr. Hassinger failing to respond to those emails are incorrect.
   Hughes, J., would grant the writ.

Respectfully, I would grant the writ and provide some relief to counsel for Greene's Energy Group, LLC. He is criticized for failing to respond to emails that were sent to the wrong address (gtbs.com rather than gjtbs.com). This discrepancy is not contested. The court of appeal should have granted rehearing to amend its opinion in order to delete any implication that counsel for Greene's "failed to cooperate."