Case Name: Glenn GASTAL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child v. Archibishop Philip M. HANNAN, Bishop Gerald L. Frey, Vicar General Richard Von Puhl Mouto Monsignor Harry E. Benefiel, Monsignor H. A. Larroque, the Archdiocese of New Orleans d/b/a the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church For the Diocese of Lafayette, the Roman Catholic Church, St. John Parish, Representing the Communities of Esther and Henry, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Interstate Insurance Company and Father Gilbert Gauthe
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1985-04-12
Citations: 466 So. 2d 450
Docket Number: No. 85-CD-0512
Parties: Glenn GASTAL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child v. Archibishop Philip M. HANNAN, Bishop Gerald L. Frey, Vicar General Richard Von Puhl Mouto Monsignor Harry E. Benefiel, Monsignor H. A. Larroque, the Archdiocese of New Orleans d/b/a the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church For the Diocese of Lafayette, the Roman Catholic Church, St. John Parish, Representing the Communities of Esther and Henry, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Interstate Insurance Company and Father Gilbert Gauthe.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 466
Pages: 450–450

Head Matter:
Glenn GASTAL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child v. Archibishop Philip M. HANNAN, Bishop Gerald L. Frey, Vicar General Richard Von Puhl Mouto Monsignor Harry E. Benefiel, Monsignor H. A. Larroque, the Archdiocese of New Orleans d/b/a the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church For the Diocese of Lafayette, the Roman Catholic Church, St. John Parish, Representing the Communities of Esther and Henry, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Interstate Insurance Company and Father Gilbert Gauthe.
No. 85-CD-0512.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 12, 1985.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
GRANTED IN PART. The February 25, 1985 order of the trial court does not prejudice relator, but the ruling fails to adjudicate relator's January 21, 1985 motion to compel Msgr. Larroque to answer deposition questions. The matter must be remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant relator appropriate relief in accordance with previous orders by this court to permit complete discovery.
The intervention by the court reporter interprets the trial court's order too narrowly. That order does not require any different method of transcription than the method normally used, but simply includes the court reporter (and his staff) within the court's protective order governing the discovery stage of the proceedings.