United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL.
NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Cross-Motions (Docs. 418, 423) appealing a
ruling by Magistrate Judge van Meerveld that ordered
Defendant Joe Marino to make himself available for a
discovery deposition before December 31, 2018. Also before
the Court is a Motion by Defendant Marino to strike an
exhibit that Plaintiffs attached to their Motion appealing
Judge van Meerveld's order (Doc. 428), and accompanying
Motions to Expedite (Doc. 429) the Motion to Strike and a
Request for Oral Argument on the Motion to Strike (Doc. 430).
following reasons, the Motions appealing Judge van
Meerveld's ruling are DENIED, and
Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
Because this Court grants Defendant's Motion to Strike,
the Motion to Expedite and Request for Oral Argument are
DENIED as moot.
lawsuit arises out of the participation by Plaintiffs Taylor
Carlisle and Emile Heron in Jefferson Parish's Drug
Court. Much of the background of this litigation has been
reproduced in Orders and Reasons previously issued by this
Court. The Court will nevertheless briefly discuss the
context in which the instant Motions arose.
October 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking a
perpetuation deposition of Defendant Joe Marino under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 27.Plaintiffs argue such a deposition
is necessary because Marino has been diagnosed with
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, commonly known as ALS and Lou
Gehrig's Disease, a debilitating disease that may make
Marino incompetent to serve as a witness during trial.
November 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld granted
Plaintiffs' Motion in part. Judge van Meerveld ruled that
Marino must appear for a deposition before December 31,
2018. She also ruled that the deposition should
be a discovery deposition pursuant to Rule 30, not a
perpetuation deposition pursuant to Rule 27. In her ruling,
Judge van Meerveld informed Plaintiffs that if they believed
a perpetuation deposition was necessary following the
discovery deposition, and if Marino would not consent to such
a deposition, they could seek relief from the court for a
December 4, 2018, Marino appealed the ruling, arguing that
the court should not allow discovery to proceed because
Defendants plan to move to dismiss this action for lack of
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose and make an appeal
themselves, arguing that Judge van Meerveld should have
granted them a Rule 27 perpetuation deposition. In their
Motion appealing Judge van Meerveld's ruling, Plaintiffs
attached as an exhibit screenshots of web pages containing
information about ALS. Marino moved to strike the exhibit from
the Record as inadmissible hearsay.
Court heard oral argument on the appeals on December 12,
district judge may refer any non-dispositive pretrial matter
to a United States Magistrate Judge. District judges must
consider timely objections to rulings by magistrates on such
matters, and they must “modify or set aside any part of
the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” “A finding is clearly erroneous
only if it is implausible in the light of the record
considered as a whole.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties
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.” Rule 30
provides that parties may conduct discovery by
deposition. Rule 27 provides that under limited
circumstances parties also may ...