REBECCA RICHEY AND MARK RICHEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN JEWEL RICHEY AND CAMERON RICHEY
JASON P. MILLER, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY
appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Docket
Number 2015-10922 Honorable Reginald T. Badeaux, III, Judge
E. Shields, Sr. Gretna, LA Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Rebecca and Mark Richey, individually and on behalf of their
minor children, Jewel and Cameron Richey
Russell Holwadel Heather England Remik New Orleans, LA
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Cisco Systems, Inc.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.
an appeal of a summary judgment dismissing claims of
vicarious liability against an alleged tortfeasor's
employer. For the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 24, 2015, Rebecca Richey was traveling north on LA
1088driving her husband, Mark Richey, to work,
while accompanied by their children, Jewel and Cameron
Richey. Around the same time, Jason Miller was traveling
south on LA 1088 after leaving Lakeshore High School, where
he had been practicing football with his son. On approaching
the westbound entrance to Interstate 12, Mrs. Richey turned
left, traversing the southbound lanes of LA 1088, in the path
of Mr. Miller's vehicle, which subsequently collided with
the Richey vehicle. The collision caused the Richey vehicle
to roll onto the driver's side, travel off the roadway,
and impact a "One Way" traffic sign. The occupants
of the Richey vehicle sustained injuries as a result of the
March 6, 2015,  Mr. and Mrs. Richey, individually and on
behalf of their minor children, filed a petition for damages
against Mr. Miller, his employer, Cisco Systems, Inc., and
their respective liability insurers, for the injuries and
damages they sustained as a result of the February 24, 2015
accident. Cisco filed an answer denying any vicarious
liability for the plaintiffs' claims. Sixteen months
after the accident, on June 29, 2016, Cisco filed a motion
for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs would be
unable to establish that Mr. Miller was acting in the course
and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
hearing on Cisco's motion for summary judgment was
originally scheduled for September 6, 2016, but was reset for
October 11, 2016, pursuant to an unopposed motion filed by
Cisco. Then on September 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to continue the hearing and an expedited motion to
compel the deposition of three Cisco employees. In the motion
to continue, the plaintiffs referred to their motion to
compel, and to the corporate deposition of Cisco scheduled
for September 30, 2016, as the basis for their motion. The
plaintiffs further alleged in the motion to continue that
"upon information and belief, " Cisco had no
objection to removing the motion for summary judgment from
the docket until the specified discovery was completed.
September 28, 2016, Cisco filed objections on the record to
several of the topics listed in the notice of the September
30, 2016 corporate deposition, which the plaintiffs had
served on Cisco on September 23, 2016.
September 30, 2016, the trial court continued the hearing on
Cisco's motion for summary judgment to December 20, 2016.
That date was maintained, despite Cisco filing an opposition
to the plaintiffs' motion to continue on October 3, 2016,
wherein it declared that it objected to and had always
objected to any continuance of the hearing date. Cisco also
filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to compel
the deposition of three of its employees, stating that the
deposition of the three individuals sought to be deposed had
never been "noticed, " that none of the individuals
were ever Mr. Miller's supervisor or manager, that any
relevant information could have been explored in Cisco's
corporate deposition, and that Robert Covington, Mr.
Miller's supervisor, was prepared to serve as the
corporate representative for the corporate deposition. Cisco
noted, however, that the plaintiffs had unilaterally
cancelled the corporate deposition after erroneously
construing its objections to the notice of the corporate
deposition as a motion to quash.
November 3, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an expedited motion to
determine what topics could be covered in the corporate
deposition of Cisco.
December 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to
Cisco's motion for summary judgment and filed a
supplemental memorandum in opposition on December 13, 2016.
The plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary
"judgments" on December 13, 2016, seeking a ruling
from the trial court on what they characterized as fourteen
"issues as [involve] vicarious liability." Because
the plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum in opposition to
Cisco's motion for summary judgment was filed less than
15 days prior to date of the hearing on the motion, Cisco
filed a motion to strike the supplemental memorandum in
opposition based on La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2), which motion
was later granted by the trial court.
December 20, 2016, the trial court considered not only
Cisco's motion for summary judgment, but also the
plaintiffs' motion to compel and the motion to determine
the topics that could be covered at the corporate deposition.
After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court
granted summary judgment in favor of Cisco, dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against it, and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to compel and motion to determine the
topics for the corporate deposition. After prompting by
plaintiffs' counsel, the trial court also denied the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
"judgments." The plaintiffs now appeal the judgment
incorporating all of those rulings, which was signed by the
trial court on January 19, 2017.
1. Appellants were entitled to pending discovery ... before
Appellees' summary judgment was heard. ...
2. Appellants were entitled to have the court determine what
topics would be allowed in the 1442 corporate deposition of