United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
DANIEL J. FREY, M.D.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AND LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER - NEW ORLEANS, THROUGH ITS CHANCELLOR, LARRY H. HOLLIER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
A. JACKSON CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 15, 2018, this Court held a Pretrial
Conference with the parties in this case. During the
Pretrial Conference, the Court set Oral Argument for
June 4, 2018 on the Defendant's Daubert Motion to
Exclude Evidence (Report) and Testimony of B. Robert Kreiser,
Ph.D. Plaintiffs proffered due process expert,
and any motions in limine that were subsequently
filed. On May 14, 2018, a letter dated May 11,
2018 and addressed to the undersigned was filed into the
record of this case. The letter, submitted and signed by
counsel for all of the parties, requested that the Court
cancel the June 4, 2018 hearing on the Defendant's
Daubert Motion, and, instead, render its
Daubert ruling based solely on the memoranda and
exhibits that have been filed into the record.
the Court admonishes counsel for all of the parties in this
case for violating this Court's Local Rules and
procedures by attempting to communicate with the Court on a
substantive matter via correspondence. In this case, where
the parties are jointly requesting that the Court take
certain action (i.e., cancel the Daubert hearing as
to Dr. Kreiser), the filing of a motion is the proper means
of communicating with the Court. It has also come to the
undersigned's attention that prior to fifing this letter
into the record, counsel for the parties attempted to submit
said letter to the Court via facsimile, which is an
inappropriate means of communicating with the Court, and then
through the undersigned's Work-Box, which is strictly to
be used for the submission of proposed orders. In fact, the
web-site for the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana expressly admonishes this activity as
follows: "Communications or inquiries may not be
submitted to the 'Proposed Orders' e-mail addresses
for the District Judges, Magistrate Judges, or Clerk's
Office. Any correspondence other than orders submitted to
these e-mail addresses shall be deleted."
Court now turns its attention to the substance of the parties
May 11, 2018 letter. The parties have essentially requested
that, instead of holding a hearing, the Court rule on the
Defendant's Daubert challenge to Dr. Kreiser
strictly on the briefs and exhibits that have been filed into
the record. The role of the trial court is to serve as the
gatekeeper for expert testimony by making the determination
of whether the expert opinion is sufficiently reliable and
relevant. Therefore, when Daubert is
invoked, a district court may, but is not required to, hold a
hearing where the proffered opinion may be
challenged. In this case, however, the Court believes
that it will better serve its duty as a gatekeeper and
fulfill its screening function of ensuring that Dr.
Kreiser's proffered opinion is reliable and relevant to
the facts at issue in the case by conducting a
Daubert hearing. Therefore, Dr. Kreiser will be
expected to be present at the June 4, 2018 hearing.
Court further apprises the parties that to the extent any of
the other five Motions in Limine that have since
been filed in this case will require witness testimony, the
parties are responsible for having those witnesses available
and present at the June 4, 2018 hearing.
 Doc. 75.
Doc. 50. The Daubert Motion
was filed on behalf of Defendant, The Board of Supervisors of
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
 Doc. 75.
 Doc. 97.
See, Local Civil Rule 11 - Signing of
Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to
Court; Sanctions. Available on-line at
See, Email Proposed Orders and
Judgments. Available on-line at