United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
WELLS ROBY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Quash a Subpoena (R. Doc.
75) filed by the Defendant seeking an order from the
Court quashing a subpoena sent to a non-party attorney, Mario
Bandaries, on the basis it seeks privileged information. The
motion is opposed. R. Doc. 80. Oral argument was heard on
January 24, 2018.
a diversity action filed by HomeLife in the Gardens, LLC
(“HomeLife”), a citizen of Ohio and Tennessee,
and Donald E. Rankey, Jr. (“Rankey”), a citizen
of Ohio and member of one entity that is a member of
HomeLife, against Leigh Landry (“Landry”), a
citizen of Louisiana. R. Doc. 1.
plaintiffs allege that on or about April 28, 2016, Landry
became the Executive Director of HomeLife in the Gardens
assisted living facility in New Orleans. Plaintiffs contend
that within weeks of the commencement of Landry's
employment HomeLife began receiving complaints relating to
Landry's treatment and behavior towards HomeLife's
residents, staff, vendors, and residents' families. R.
Doc. 15, pp. 3-4.
extending Landry's introductory period for an additional
sixty days in early August due to the complaints, Plaintiffs
contend that between August 11 and 15, 2016, HomeLife became
aware that Landry's behavior did not change or improve.
Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that on August 17, 2016,
Landry called Rankey's son to tell him that she received
a call from Rankey that disturbed her and purportedly had
Rankey's son listen to the message. Plaintiffs state that
Rankey's phone records show that he did not make the
disturbing call to Landry and that several resident and
employees of HomeLife attest that Rankey was in a meeting at
the time this call was supposedly made and he neither left
the meeting nor made any calls. Id. at p. 5.
to the Plaintiffs, Landry was terminated on August 17, 2016
due to complaints, as well as an unwillingness to conform to
responsible and professional behavior. Id. at p. 6.
HomeLife contends that on September 13, 2016, it learned that
Landry was forwarding the voicemail to multiple people,
claimed it was from Rankey, and that several marketers at an
industry event were discussing the voicemail and that
multiple individuals stated that no longer wished to do
business with HomeLife based on the message. Id. at
p. 6. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant either created or
received the message from another caller and maliciously
edited it to identify Rankey as the caller. Id. at
p. 7. Plaintiffs further allege that Landry continues to
falsely and maliciously proliferate the message throughout
the industry, the greater New Orleans area, and the HomeLife
in the Gardens community causing damages to reputation,
business relations, business opportunities and goodwill.
Id. The Plaintiffs seek damages for defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as a
permanent injunction. Id. at pp. 8-12.
filed an answer as well as a number of counterclaims on
August 2, 2017. R. Doc. 48. Landry's counterclaims
include sexual harassment, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, assault and battery, whistleblower claims
under Louisiana law, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act, defamation per se as to Landry's EEOC
claim, and fraud. Id. at pp. 7-14.
January 9, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting
counter-defendants' motion for summary judgement against
Landry's with respect to all of her counterclaims except
for her assault and battery claim. R. Doc. 83.
before the Court is Landry's motion to quash a subpoena
sent by the Plaintiffs to non-party attorney Madro Bandaries.
R. Doc. 75. The subpoena requests all communications between
the non-party attorney Madro Bandaries and Jennifer Medley
(defense attorney in this case), Steve Rando, and Colin
Lagarde regarding HomeLife in the Gardens and/or Leigh Landry
from May 1, 2016 to the present. R. Doc. 75-2.
contends that Mario Bandaries is counsel in actions in the
Civil District of Court of Orleans Parish in cases involving
HomeLife and that Steve Rando and Colin Lagarde are counsel
in a case against HomeLife. R. Doc. 75-1, p. 2. Plaintiff
contends that the subpoena should be quashed because: (1)
Defendants failed to follow the proper process in serving the
subpoena; (2) the subpoena seeks privileged information or
work product; and (3) the purpose of the subpoena is
harassment or delay. R. Doc. 75.
oppose the motion. R. Doc. 80. They argue that: (1) defense
counsel was properly noticed pursuant to the federal rules of
the intent to issue the subpoena; and (2) the subpoena does
not seek privileged information or work product. Id.