Opinion
NO. 2019-CA-0309
08-21-2019
Timothy L. JARQUIN v. Danny R. BLANKS, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member and Manager of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; Barlow J. Cook, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; James R. Washington, III, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; and Mary LeBlanc, Individually and in Her Capacity as Director of Human Resources of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.
Stephen D. Marx, P.J. Stakelum III, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN. WILLIAMS, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P., One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100, Metairie, LA 70001, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Jason R. Anders, ANDERS LAW FIRM, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1400, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Stephen D. Marx, P.J. Stakelum III, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN. WILLIAMS, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P., One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100, Metairie, LA 70001, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Jason R. Anders, ANDERS LAW FIRM, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1400, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods, Judge Paula A. Brown )
Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods Appellant, Pontchartrain Partners, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PPLLC"), seeks review of the district court's December 27, 2018 judgment denying its motion to quash, which it filed in response to a request for subpoena duces tecum filed by Appellee, Timothy Jarquin. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand this matter to the district court for specific findings on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the facts of this case.
A judgment is final and appealable pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 1841, when it "determines the merits in whole or in part" The judgment at issue determines the merits in whole between Appellant and Appellee.
BACKGROUND
This matter has been before this Court a number of times to address different issues. The relevant factual background is set forth in this Court's opinion Jarquin v. Blanks , 2018-0157 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/15/18), 254 So.3d 10. Of note, the named defendants in the lawsuit are all members of PPLLC, with James Washington, III, serving as general counsel to the company.
On December 18, 2017, Appellee filed a request for subpoena duces tecum directed to the records custodian of Appellant, a non-party to the litigation. Therein, Appellee requested production of documents and things as described in thirty-five separate paragraphs. Many of the requests specifically name Mr. Washington.
Appellant responded to the subpoena with a motion to quash filed on January 4, 2018. While the motion to quash argued several bases in support of quashal, Appellant briefed only one such basis on appeal; that is, the subpoena calls for the production of records potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The district court held a hearing on the motion on November 30, 2018. At the hearing, the district found that Appellee was entitled to all the documents requested. The judgment was reduced to writing on December 27, 2018.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The question of whether an attorney-client relationship exists is a question of fact, and thus subject to manifest error analysis. Keith v. Keith , 48,919, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/15/14), 140 So.3d 1202, 1208-09. A trial court's ruling on a motion to quash is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Weatherford Int'l , 463 So.2d 751, 753 (La.App. 4. Cir. 1985).
ANALYSIS
The existence of an attorney-client relationship turns largely on the client's subjective belief that it exists. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Bosworth , 481 So.2d 567, 571 (La. 1986). This Court, in Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 1999-1421, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/10/01), 798 So.2d 1210, 1216, stated:
To establish attorney-client privilege, several elements must be proven: (1) the holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the communication was made to an attorney or his subordinate in a professional capacity; (3) the communication was made outside the presence of strangers; (4) the communication was made to obtain a legal opinion or services; and (5) the privilege has not been waived.
When such a relationship exists, "[c]ommunications between a client and his attorney made with the expectation of confidentiality are protected ... and cannot be disclosed without the client's permission. Pitard v. Stillwater Transfer & Storage Co. , 589 So.2d 1127, 1128 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1991).
In the instant matter, the district court provided no specific factual analysis for ruling that Appellee was entitled to all the information sought in its request for subpoena duces tecum . Mr. Washington is specifically named in a number of the requests, and the district court made no finding as to whether those communications involving Mr. Washington were made in his capacity as general counsel, and thus protected by the privilege. Accordingly, it is unclear from the facts presented whether the district court made any specific findings in this regard. Without these findings, we cannot determine whether the district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the motion to quash. See Cleco Corp. v. Sansing , 2009-0806, pp. 1-2 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So.3d 555, 556.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGMENT VACATED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
On application for rehearing, Timothy Jarquin, Appellee, seeks amendment of this Court's August 21, 2019 opinion. Appellant, Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C, had appealed the district court's December 27, 2018 judgment denying its motion to quash, arguing that Appellee, who had filed a subpoena duces tecum , was seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege. On appeal, this Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for additional analysis of the attorney-client privilege claim.
We grant Appellee's application for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that our prior opinion vacating the judgment is directed only to that portion of the judgment denying the motion to quash despite an arguable claim of attorney-client privilege to the information sought. In all other respects, the original judgment shall stand, as Appellant did not raise any other claims on appeal apart from privilege.