briefs, on the issues, and (3) failing to consider that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof to show that a step was taken in the prosecution. Ultimately, the defendants’ position rests on their submission that the last step taken in the case toward prosecution sufficient to interrupt the running of the three-year abandonment period occurred on October 31, 2013, when the trial court entered the protective order. Under the terms of Article 561(B), they argue that the letter requesting a subpoena duces tecum cannot be deemed a step in the prosecution, because notice of same was not “served on all the parties, whether or not filed of record.” Citing Mosley v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 36,907 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1218, writ denied, 03-989 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1055 (<HOLDING>). The defendants even note that, to date, they
holding that notice to counsel may be waived holding that counsel could be disqualified from opposing plaintiffs claims of unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets where counsel had represented plaintiff as general counsel during the relevant time period holding that the clients right to its chosen counsel superseded the opposing partys right to call that counsel as a witness when there were other witnesses available to testify to the same facts holding that a defendant who seeks to retain private counsel must receive proper notice of the date by which counsel must enter his appearance holding notice of informal discovery must be served on opposing counsel to constitute a step in the prosecution