Opinion ID: 1828998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: motion for production of documents

Text: With respect to plaintiff's motion for production of documents, the Court of Appeal ordered the production of items one and two (photographs), but refused to order the production of items three and four, (essentially reports by defendant's agents and/or attorneys) and five (reports concerning both Kenmore and Eldorado Plantations prepared by the Soil Conversation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture of New Roads, La.). Their ruling on items three and four was based upon Article 1452 Code of Civil Procedure. [9] They denied Item five absent a showing that such paraphernalia is not equally available to plaintiff from the Soil Conservation Service. We find no error in these rulings of the Court of Appeal on plaintiff's motion for production of documents. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeal sustaining defendant's exceptions of res judicata and vagueness are reversed; the judgment affirming the striking of plaintiff's interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories and requests for admissions is reversed; the judgment in connection with plaintiff's motion for production of documents is affirmed; and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Determination of all costs is to await the final outcome of this case. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. SANDERS, C. J., dissents, being of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct. See 268 So.2d 74.