Buckskin Hunting Club, 868 So.2d at 276 (citation omitted). As stated in the comments to article 456, “[according to well-settled Louisiana jurisprudence, which continues to be relevant, the servitude of public use under this provision is not ‘for the use of the public at large for all purposes’ but merely for purposes that are ‘incidental’ to the navigable character of the stream and its enjoyment as an avenue of commerce.” La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 452 cmt. b (citations omitted). The Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted, in the parallel state proceeding, that fishing on the banks of the Mississippi River does not meet the definition of a navigational use. Walker Lands, 871 So.2d at 1268 n. 6 (citations omitted). We agree. See, e.g., State v. Barras, 602 So.2d 301, 305 (La.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Edmiston v. Wood, 566 So.2d 673, 675-76
holding that an agents testimony regarding defendants compound statement that he had been out fishing all night but he didnt wish to say any more was not a doyle violation holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action holding that the sale of a painted portrait was incidental to the provision of an artists creative services holding that fishing was not incidental to navigation holding that the trial court must ensure that the requests are tailored to the specific action and that discovery requests that reflect a mere fishing expedition should not be allowed