Appeal filed in former Pig Stand owner lawsuit

The next step to be taken in Barry Giglio’s lawsuit against the Louisiana State Police and Dwayne and Mindy Venable currently depends on a Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that has yet to be made.
The 2012 lawsuit was a product of a 2011 incident where Giglio and seven other individuals were falsely arrested by the LSP after the Venables alleged those arrested had committed child sex abuse crimes.
What has now placed the future of this lawsuit in the hands of the Third Circuit Court is a ruling against abandonment of the suit that was made by St. Landry Judicial District Judge Gerald Caswell during a court hearing that was held on March 20, 2017.
The question in court on that March morning was, had any legitimate action been taken in the Giglio lawsuit before the abandonment date of October 31, 2016.
After the Judge viewed the St. Landry Clerk of Court’s record, he learned that a Subpoena Duces Tecum was filed upon a third party in this matter, the Evangeline Parish Sheriff, in July of 2016 by Giglio’s attorney, Roy Richard.
According to Giglio, he requested the information “for the purpose of acquiring documents that would prove there was no evidence and or probable cause to arrest” he and his wife Marla Giglio for the crimes they were accused of committing. Giglio also stated that this was a “multi-jurisdictional investigation” and he “anticipates issuing more subpoenas.”
With proof that a subpoena had been filed in the clerk’s record, the next issue that arose dealt with the fact that the attorney for the LSP, Gregory Moroux, Sr., and attorney for the Venables, Patrick M. Wartelle, claim they were never received a copy of the subpoena. They argued that as council for the defendants, they should have been provided with a copy of the subpoena by Richard and his client.
Although Richard stated to the court that his third party subpoena was “mailed” to both defendants’ attorneys, he also stated, “The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure requires that all parties in the matter be notified when requesting materials that are a part of discovery (a pretrial procedure in which each party involved obtains evidence from the other party or parties if they wish to do so). In this situation the evidence requested may or may not have information that could help my client in this case, and it may or may not be a part of discover. Court records show that the Sheriff of Evangeline was served. However, no return of service was in the record.”
He then went on to say, “The law also does not stipulate whether or not all parties have to be notified when the person served is a third party who has no involvement in the lawsuit.”
Unable to find any law to support granting the abandonment, Judge Caswell stated, “I am perplexed as to whether your subpoena is sufficient enough to interrupt the abandonment period. I don’t grant an abandonment if I have any doubt, and in this matter I have doubt.”
The hearing ended with the judge denying the motion for abandonment on the case, and granting the plaintiff a trial date. That date has not been set at this time.
On April 26, 2017, Moroux and Wartelle filed their Third Circuit Supervisory Writ arguing that the “district court erred in failing to consider that the plaintiff in an abandonment has the burden of proof to show that a step was taken in the prosecution of the case for a period of less than three years.”
The Third Circuit now must decide if the lower court made the right ruling or if it should be reversed.
A reversal would force Giglio to either seek a decision from the Supreme Court or the suit would be dismissed against the defendant’s, while if the ruling stands, the next step will be to officially have a trial date set for the lawsuit to be heard in court.
Following the filing of the appeal, Giglio stated, “In the event the Third Circuit would reverse the decision; I am prepared to bring this matter to the Supreme Court.”