¶1In re: Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. of Alexandria, La. applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.
¶2Writ granted in part. Because of the unusual circumstances and posture of this matter, we set aside the ruling of the trial court refusing the motion to vacate the order for subpoena duces tecum. The motion to vacate is remanded for the taking of evidence from relator and respondent as to irrelevancy, overbroadness, oppressiveness and unreasonableness of the subpoena.
¶3dissents from the action of this Court. No “unusual circumstances” are noted and the hearing ordered is a repetition of that on which the trial judge has already ruled.
¶4dissents. The trial judge’s ruling refusing to vacate defendant’s requested issuance of subpoena duces tecum was not erroneous. In his broad discretion the trial judge has found that response to the subpoena duces tecum was not unreasonable or oppressive. I would not substitute this Court’s judgment for the trial judge’s in a matter of this nature just as I would be so disinclined were the requested subpoena by the State.