
    Paul A. BOUDREAUX, Dana Legnon, Bessie Hardimon and Richard T. Sevin v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 95-CC-1169.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 1995.
   ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

|1PER CURIAM.

Motion for Clarification granted. We amend our eai’lier action taken on May 12, 1995 in this matter to read as follows:

Granted in part and denied in part. The district court judge is ordered to grant a continuance and reschedule trial only after a reasonable delay. The district court is also ordered to establish new discovery deadlines and other cut-off dates concerning witness lists, the filing of Motions, and disclosing of exhibits after a reasonable delay. Insofar as the writ application requests relief from the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, which are discovery devices properly directed to a party only, the writ application is denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., assigns additional reasons.

|1CALOGERO, Chief Justice,

assigns additional concurring reasons.

While it is not evident that the matter of the res judicata dismissal is final, unless and until the Trial Court is commanded by a higher court to allow the reinstitution of the third party claim against the Parish (following a successful appeal, for instance), the Trial Court should not be compelled to treat the Parish as a party and compel it to answer discovery propounded through Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, which are properly directed only to a party in an action. See C.C.P. arts. 1457, 1461. Alternative discovery devices are available to relator. 
      
       Victory, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.
     