, 591 So.2d 1184, 1188 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991); Fabre v. Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corp., 499 So.2d 1239 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986); Sally Beauty Co. v. Barney, 442 So.2d 820, 822 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1983) (finding intent clear under facts of case). See also Roberts v. Orpheum Corp., 630 So.2d 914, 916 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993); Jarrell v. Carter, 632 So.2d 321 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1993), writ denied, 94-C-0700 (La. 4/29/94); ___ So.2d ___; Dixon v. Perlman, 528 So.2d 637 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1988); Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. of New York, 524 So.2d 788, 791 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writs denied, 525 So.2d 1048, 1049 (La. 1988); Johnson v. Hitchens, 518 So.2d 1154, 1156 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1987) (collecting cases); Watson v. Cook, 427 So.2d 1312, 1316 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1983); Sally Beauty Co. v. Barney, 442 So.2d 820, 822 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1983); Ortego v. Ortego, 425 So.2d 1292 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1982), writ denied, 429 So.2d 147 (La. 1983); Roy Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 249 La. 724, 190 So.2d 236 (1966). Procedurally, the court's first task on a motion for summary judgment is determining whether the moving party's supporting documents — pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits — are sufficient to resolve all material factual issues.
The communication must not go beyond what the occasion demands, nor may it be unnecessarily defamatory. Madison v. Bolton, 102 So.2d at 443-444; Roy Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492, 494 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 249 La. 724 (1966), 190 So.2d 236. Defendant testified he was not acting out of malice but honestly believed plaintiff was the Copeland expert when he made the communications at issue in this suit.
Because Articles 966 and 967 governing motions for summary judgment are based on Rule 56, decisions of federal courts interpreting Rule 56 can be used by Louisiana courts to interpret Articles 966 and 967. Scott v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Parish of St. Charles, 496 So.2d 270 (La. 1986); Roy Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writrefused, 249 La. 724, 190 So.2d 236 (La. 1966). A review of the current federal jurisprudence concerning summary judgments where intent is the principal issue shows that such summary judgments are not precluded as a matter of law; rather, they depend on the particular facts presented in the documentary evidence accompanying the motion.
The guidelines for the use of the summary judgment procedure as authorized by LSA-C.C.P. art. 966 are well established. They are succinctly stated in the case of Roy Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1966), writ ref., 249 La. 724, 190 So.2d 236, as follows: "The courts have noted repeatedly that the summary judgment remedy is not a substitute for a trial and may not be resorted to when there is a genuine issue of material fact which must be resolved.
If a genuine issue as to a material fact exists, a summary judgment may not be rendered. Glass v. Vista Shores Club, 221 So.2d 304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1969); Joiner v. Lenee, 213 So.2d 136 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968), writ refused 252 La. 960, 215 So.2d 129; Roy Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966), writ refused 249 La. 724, 190 So.2d 236; Acadia-Vermilion Rice Irrigating Co. v. Broussard, 185 So.2d 908 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966). If there is any doubt concerning the absence of a material issue of fact, a motion for summary judgment does not lie and must be rejected in favor of a trial on the merits.