TIMOTHY L. JARQUIN Vs. 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.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TIMOTHY L. JARQUIN * NO. 2019-CA-0309 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL 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. * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-10461, DIVISION “G-11” Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge ****** Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods, Judge Paula A. Brown) ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING 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 LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 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. 1
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.
