Writ application denied.
I agree that this Court should generally not interfere with the broad discretion afforded to the trial court in its regulation of pre-trial discovery. See Lenard v. Dilley, 01-1522 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So.2d 175 (Kimball, J., concurring and assigning reasons, noting that reviewing decisions stemming from motions in limine is an inefficient allocation of this courts already strained judicial time and resources where said motions often reach this court without a developed record upon which to review the trial courts decision); and Harry Caminita and Patty Caminita v. State of Louisiana Through the Department of Transportation and Development, 14-2317 (La. 2/6/15), 177 So.3d 321, writ denied (Crichton, J., additionally concurring and assigning reasons, citing Lenard, supra, Kimball, J., concurring, echoing that this Court should generally refrain from reviewing interlocutory judgments on motions in limine). However, in my view, these unusual circumstances present serious allegations of multi-layered corruption that rise to the level warranting this Courts intervention. More specifically, I find defendants have set forth good cause to obtain the information sought by the discovery subpoena, although with specific restrictions tailored to the request and subject to an in camera inspection by the trial court. See La. C.C.P. art. 1354(A). Accordingly, I would grant the writ application and reverse the lower courts’ rulings quashing the subpoena.
Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.