Lisa Whittington VS Walmart, Inc. and Adam Bourgeois
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT LISA WHTTTINGTON 2021 NO. VERSUS CW PAGE WALMART INC. AND 1 0746 OF 2 ADAM BOURGEOIS NOVM4BER In Re: Walmart Inc., Judicial for applying District Court, 2 0 21 23rd writs, supervisory Parish 0 3, Ascension, of No. 128735. BEFORE: GUIDRY, WRIT broadly HOLDRIDGE, GRANTED. that a 2002- 1197 ( burden 5/ 24/ 02), La. that settled 819 the trial liberally justice annoyance, La. 287, has court requires Civ. P. art. Consultants, 289 ( and There embarrassment, Code Assurance So. 2d JJ. objectives. when expense. Systems Safety & v. from or be to are however, rule, AND WOLFE intended their protected undue PENZATO, statutes achieve this be or Stolzle well to to party oppression, 1426; Discovery construed limitations are CHUTZ, per Inc., broad is It curiam). discretion in and the trial court' s rulings discovery, will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of that pre- trial regulating discretion. Laborde 3/ 9/ 12), La. the whether 82 trial the information and the v. App. La. 1st stipulation has the wholly all parties of App. defendant its the and for this thereby and broadly 2, 2019, and as stipulated. Terral Waffle 684 performance from some 6/ 27/ 03), La. Walmart it that 848 had which disposing has binds which 96- 0589 Inc., 1167- 68. When a duty owed to a of risks v. harm) Brookshire 559, 567. duties In to stipulated breached were It legal of So. 2d certain it. made acknowledges Hall has Inc. A defendant certain damage. 925- 1993). stipulation House, 1165, that order. 923, and confession, So. 2d liability, sustain court, v. A s La. who issue fact. that of So. 2d 913 ( those from or court. to against fact a balance involved court' 615 So. 2d determining must issues the Co., 617 admission protection to toward due to caused Bros., the case liability, plaintiff, substandard Although the discovery statutes are to be liberally it construed, would defendant' s policies proof 12/ 20/ 96), Whittington, information the the admitting performance. full substandard 2002- 2404 ( before Lisa the Cir. stipulates plaintiff Ltd., to Ins. denied, court by caused Home writ judicial fault ( plaintiff Southern In factual the of 2012- 0074 Co., curiam). appellate be would withdrawing need for proof a 1st light Insurance per an of the with effect that amounts effect the La. that Cir.), Mutual 1238 ( erred, in sought American 26 ( 1237, court hardships Lehmann Shelter v. So. 3d be does discovered not appear through the that fact any relevant depositions of former and current employees regarding Walmart' s procedures, or the issues of duty the Therefore, we grant events and this that took breach writ have place on already application, June been reverse STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2021 NO. CW PAGE the trial for protective 1426( A)( court' 1), Walmart' s and 4, May s and denying ruling accordance grant former 2021 in order prohibiting employees. Civ. OF 2 motion P. art. depositions the same, current Walmart' s Code La. with 2 0746 of JMG WRC AHP EW Holdridge, grant a the protective Walmart' the s J. writ agrees application to order former depositions serving written art. 1448. This and of in former questions allow the the trial accordance I employees defendant would grant would of La. to I and depositions However, with part. court unlimited current the in dissents employees. and in and reverse prohibit current would part to Walmart Code object Civ. and judicial review prior to the actual taking of the depositions. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT DEPUTYWRKOFRT FOR THE COURT of allow by P. for
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
