The Dow Chemical Company VS Geismar Specialty Products, LLC (2013CW0932 Rehearing Application)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 2013 NO. CW 0932 VERSUS GEISMAR SPECIALTY APR 1 x .2015 PRODUCTS, LLC In Re: The Dow Chemical Company, Judicial District McCLENDON, APPLICATION 30, 2014 the Bates order, HOLDRIDGE AND FOR REHEARING was action internally 1605- 1619 numbers which CHUTZ, Baton East Rouge, privilege, JJ. GRANTED. This Court' s inconsistent in both documents enumerated attorney- client order, 19th for rehearing, of 579503. No. BEFORE: applying Parish Court, that in and because first the it listed paragraph were the December by paragraph the of protected ' second the of the which enumerated documents that were not protected by the attorney- client privilege 1619 . 2013 is ruling portion in enumerated district Court' s we 30, to that 2014 documents the Court' s to action first the amend 30, April s respect found that hereby December court' with this of attorney- client Numbers 1605- Bates district part ruling paragraph Accordingly, this of in only the that bearing the court first the non- privileged. paragraphs that clarify reversed the of clarify documents the further We We privilege. protects to action be two read as follows: WRIT GRANTED reverses finds and documents 1688, 166, IN the that 1082- 1083, 2186, 2439, We uphold as the 1373, by privilege the 1592, 280- 281 2188- 2189 752, respect Bates district the of does privilege privilege, be to number not follows: as 1627- 1629, writ reviewed pursuant by Bates identified 672, 936- 977, 282- 291 ( 162- 933- 934, 2162, 2166, ( included in in 935, 2185- the writ the finding court the protect 403- 408, writ 1634- 1635, documents documents . designated and in protected is application to this number 979- 1020, ( included not the by denied. Court' s order as , follows: 1084- 1086, writ that Bates a 565- 568 . trade the secrets by attorney- client Those documents in 2013CW0907 104- 105, 1593- 1597, 1329- 1636- 1637, without as the documents 409- 412, 115, 1946- 1947, 553- 562) , 700) , will and are 110- 114, 1604, application as p. included in the writ application as p. 659included in the writ application as p. 616- 658) . 3499 75- 78, ( included 1630- 1632, 2033- 2054, those Master, the those 1605- 1619, 3316, 466- 473, 1205- 1206, 551- 552) , 1651- 1653, Special hereby protects number but included in the writ application as p. With Court follows : as 3095- 3098, 463- 465, 2576- 2577, ruling 1624- 1626, 1648- 1650, This 563- 564) . p. attorney- client identified 368- 380, p. PART. number 2730- 2735, 1131- 1132, as application Bates by 2440- 2481, application IN attorney- client 2711, 198, DENIED 2013 ruling of the district court in part the 1835- 1838, 978, 30, identified 196- 197, AND PART April 3458- 3500- 3542 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 CW 0932 PAGE The documents and 569- 615 those In Dow were documents, all other identified not as contained in respects, this PMC GH WRC OF APPEAL, PUTY FOR FIRST CIRCUIT CLERK OF COURT THE this numbers writ 292, 3590- 3680, application; as to the writ is denied on the showing made. maintained. COURT Bates 2 COURT Court' s previous action is
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.
