United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
S Guttmann for Defendants.
Heather A. McArthur for Defendants.
Joseph, Plaintiff Willie Johnson, Jr. for Plaintiffs.
Derrick Elzy¸for Plaintiffs.
MINUTE ENTRY; ORDER AND REASONS
WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Vacate and Reset Hearing on Motion
to Compel (R. Doc. 60) filed by Plaintiffs Jerry Joseph and
Merline Joseph (“Plaintiffs”) request the Court
to vacate, quash, or estop its prior order (R. Doc. 58)
compelling the Plaintiffs to provide their initial
disclosures, compelling Plaintiff Jerry Joseph to appear for
a deposition on July 6, 2016, and ordering the
Plaintiffs' counsel to pay the attorneys' fees and
costs incurred by the Defendants in bringing the prior motion
to compel. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's prior
order was contrary to the facts underlying this matter and
that the Plaintiffs' counsel only rose to the level of
excusable neglect. R. Doc. 60-1, p. 1-4.
before the Court is a “Response to Order to Show
Cause” (R. Doc. 63) filed by the Plaintiffs further
requesting that the Court to reschedule the Court-ordered
deposition of Plaintiff Jerry Joseph because he does not have
the financial means to travel to New Orleans, Louisiana. The
Court understands this letter filed into the record to be an
attempt by Plaintiffs' counsel to file another motion
seeking relief from the Court's prior order. Given this,
the Court will expedite its consideration of the Motion to
Vacate and Reset Hearing on Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 60).
before turning the merits of the Plaintiffs' requests,
the Court must take this time to caution Plaintiffs'
counsel to cease its letter writing campaign to the
Court's record. Should the Plaintiffs seek relief from
the Court, the Plaintiffs must follow this Court's local
rules for the filing of motions. L.R. 7. Failure to comply
with the Local Rules in future filings may constitute
sanctionable conduct that the Court will not tolerate.
action was filed in the District Court on March 9, 2015. R.
Doc. 1. The Plaintiffs allege that the Plaintiff's son
Keith Joseph (“Deceased”) was booked as an inmate
at the Tangipahoa Parish Prison in Tangipahoa, Louisiana on
or about February 19, 2014. Id. at p. 4. The
Plaintiffs further state that the Deceased suffered from
various health conditions, including blood clots surrounding
his lungs and a severe heart condition which left untreated
caused him to suffer intolerable chest pain. Id. at
p. 5. The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the
Deceased's time at the Tangipahoa Parish Prison the
Defendants in this action were informed of his medical
condition and that the Tangipahoa Parish Prison was in
control of the Deceased's medication. On March 3, 2014,
the Deceased's physical condition deteriorated to the
point that he was having intolerable chest pain and began
requesting his medication from Defendant Officer Brock.
Id. On March 11, 2014, the Deceased was brought to
the on-duty Nurse for evaluation, but was returned to his
cell despite his complaints. After returning to his cell, the
Deceased allegedly continued to complaint to Office Brock
until he collapsed in front of Officer Brock and a number of
other inmates. Id. at p. 6. Following his collapse,
the Deceased was not administered Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation until a period of at least thirty minutes.
Id. The Deceased died allegedly as a result of this
neglect. As such, the Plaintiffs have filed this action
against the Louisiana Department of Corrections and a number
of other individuals associated with the prison seeking
damages for mental pain, anguish, and distress, burial
expenses, loss of love and affection, and all other damages.
Id. at p. 8.
time, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion to vacate this
Court's prior order (R. Doc. 58) as well as reset the
hearing on the motion to compel. R. Doc. 60. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Court's prior order should be vacated,
quashed, and/or estopped essentially because the
Plaintiffs' failure to oppose/respond to the motion to
compel was the excusable neglect of the Plaintiffs'
attorney. R. Doc. 60-1, p. 3-4. The Plaintiffs' have
further filed a letter with the Court stating that Plaintiff
Jerry Joseph cannot attend the Court-ordered deposition
because he is unable to afford the travel expenses. R. Doc.
63. And, on July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff did not attend the
deposition, and the Court held a discovery conference with
Standard of Review
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of this
Court's prior order citing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60. However, that rule is inapposite here.
“Rule 60(b) does not apply to the underlying discovery
order which [the Plaintiffs seek] to vacate. Indeed, Rule
60(b) ‘by its terms [is] limited to ‘final'
judgments or orders [and] is inapplicable to interlocutory
orders.'” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v.
Creative Capital Consortium, LLC, No. 08-81565, 2010 ...