Court Opinion

ID: 9392042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 20:06:07.07803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.226393
License: Public Domain

i

                  STATE OF LOUIS1IANA
          COURT OF APPEAL, Fl~ST CIRCUIT
MARTHA JANE GUICHARD AND                                         NO.   2023 CW 0125
NICHOLAS GUICHARD

VERSUS
GERARD J. GIANOLI, M.D.,                                               MAY 3, 2023
HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT #1
OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH D/B/A
NORTH OAKS MEDICAL CENTER,

                                             i

In Re:     Martha Jane Guichard, applyirilg for supervisory writs,
           21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa,
           No. 20190000472.

BEFORE:    WELCH, PENZATO, LANIER, WOLFE; AND GREENE, JJ.
                                                 I

      WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED INI PART.  We hereby reverse
in part the trial court's December 14 ,I 2022 order that ordered
the disclosure of the documents revieweti by in camera inspection
to defendants, Norian Corporation and D~puy Synthes Sales, Inc.
We find the trial court abused its di scretion in ordering the
                                                 1

production of emails exchanged betweeijl counsel for plaintiff,
Martha     Jane  Guichard,  and   defencta9t, Gerald   J.     Gianoli
 (including all attachments and forwarded emails) because we find
that a common interest privilege under La. Code Evict. art.
506 (B) (3) existed between plaintiff, Mkrtha Jane Guichard, and
defendant, Gerald J. Gianoli.      See stJ Bernard Port, Harbor &
Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, OCnc., LLC, 2017-0388 (La.
App. 4th Cir. 4/18/18), 246 So.3d 23, 2V, writ denied, 2018-0826
 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 917 and Turbin~ Generation Services LLC
v.   General Electric Co.,    2020 WL 1 243539,   *3-5
                                                     1
                                                          (W. D. La.
3/13/20) .    We therefore maintain the 9ommon interest privilege
over these documents, which are not subjfct to production.

                                 JEW
                                 AHP
                                  HG

     Lanier and Wolfe, JJ., dissent.      Privileges are to be
strictly interpreted.   Smith v. LincolfD General Hospital, 605
So.2d 1347, 1348 (La. 1992) (per cur~am).      We find that the
trial court did not abuse its discretfon in its December 14,
2022 ruling, which ordered the disclosure of the documents
pursuant to the discovery request fi led by the defendants,
                                                         1

Norian Corporation and Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc.       Donelon v.
Shilling,  2021-0703  (La.  App.  1st dir.   4/12/22),   2022 WL
1090279, *3 (unpublished).   According, lwe would deny the writ
application.                                                 I

                                                             I

                                                             I
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                             I

    DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
        FOR THE COURT