United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 108)
filed on December 15, 2016. The deadline to file an
opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the Motion is
seek an order requiring supplemental responses to
Defendant's Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents Numbers 7 and 10 served on April 7,
2016. Request for Production Number 7 requests
any documents produced by Plaintiff or on his behalf from
January of 2013 through June of 2015 pertaining to the
alleged sexual assaults. (R. Doc. 108-2 at 5). On May 17,
2016, Plaintiff provided certain documents in response, but
withheld other documents subject to the attorney-client
privilege and work product doctrine. (R. Doc. 108-3).
for Production Number 10 similarly requests the production of
all documents, including any audio or video recordings,
provided to or received by any third party to the action that
relates to the allegations or claims in the action. (R. Doc.
108-2 at 6). On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff provided certain
documents that he provided to third party experts, further
stating that he “has received no items from any third
party beyond those already produced in discovery.” (R.
Doc. 108-3 at 4).
then reviewed recorded conservations between Plaintiff and a
third party, Evonne Macera. (R. Doc. 108-1 at 2). Defendants
represent that Plaintiff stated in these recorded
conversations that Ms. Macera should receive a copy of all
documents from Plaintiff's counsel as requested by
Plaintiff to his counsel. (R. Doc. 108-1 at 2).
September 23, 2016, Defendants requested production of all
documents, including video or audio recordings, produced to
Ms. Macera by Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel, as well
as the substance of any conversation between Ms. Macera and
Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel related to the lawsuit.
(R. Doc. 108-5).
October 7, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel provided “all
letters sent to Ms. Macera from Mr. Long's office”
and further stated that Plaintiff's counsel would
“ensure that he has disclosed all responsive
communications.” (R. Doc. 108-6 at 1).
October 17, 2016, Plaintiff supplemented his response to
Request for Production No. 10 by providing recordings
obtained from the West Feliciana Parish Office and again
identifying the documents sent to Ms. Macera from Mr.
Long's office. (R. Doc. 108-4 at 4). Plaintiff's
counsel also sent an e-mail verifying that based on the
records at Mr. Long's office, the extent of items sent to
Ms. Macera has been produced regardless of whether Plaintiff
“wished for Ms. Macera to receive a copy of all
documents set to [Plaintiff].” (R. Doc. 108-11 at 2).
The email also verifies that no additional documents had been
sent to Ms. Macera from any of Plaintiff's counsel other
than Mr. Long. (R. Doc. 108-11 at 2).
December 2, 2016, defense counsel requested, in addition to
reasserting the foregoing request for supplementation,
“the document or correspondence from Plaintiff to Mr.
Long that Plaintiff references in the phone call to Ms.
Macera on June 20, 2014 wherein Plaintiff states that he sent
a letter to Mr. Long specifically requesting for Mr. Long to
send Ms. Macera copies of everything that is sent to
Plaintiff.” (R. Doc. 108-12 at 2). Plaintiff's
counsel responded that the “fact that Mr. Johnson may
have wanted Mr. Long to break privilege by sharing certain
letters does not mean Mr. Long did so” and
“[a]bsent actual evidence of an actual disclosure of
privileged communication, this is a fishing
expedition.” (R. Doc. 108-12 at 1).
point, Defendants issued a Rule 45 subpoena to Ms. Macera.
Defendants do not submit a copy of the subpoena with their
motion, but indicate that it requested “any documents
sent to her by plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel.”
(R. Doc. 108-1 at 3). Defendants further represent that Ms.
Macera “produced several documents that she had
received from plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel to
defendants which were not previously identified or produced
by plaintiff as having been sent to Ms. Macera.” (R.
Doc. 108-1 at 3; see R. Docs. 108-13, 108-14, and
108-15). Defendants also submit a copy of Plaintiff's
privilege log, which indicates that various correspondence
sent from Mr. Long to Plaintiff while he was incarcerated
were withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and
the work product doctrine. (R. Doc. 108-16).
Law and Analysis
otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is
as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative
access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope
of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
is no dispute that some information covered by
Defendants' Request for Production Numbers 7 and 10 would
fall within the scope of discovery. The only objection made
by Plaintiff was lodged with regard to Request for Production
Number 7 to the extent it seeks ...