Pace v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Filing 33

Minute Order. Proceedings held 2/28/12 before Judge Lance M Africk: Status conf held re filing of mtn for sum jgm, 31 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court; ORDER dismissing pla's punitive damages as stated herein; 30 MOTION to Continue Trial is granted. (car, )

MINUTE ENTRY
AFRICK, J.
February 28, 2012
JS-10 00:15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HOLLIS PACE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 11-1791

WEEKS MARINE, INC., ET AL.

SECTION I

A status conference was held on this date with counsel for all parties participating. The
parties discussed Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc.’s desire to file a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff had no opposition to dismissal without prejudice of the claims for punitive damages
raised in connection with his maintenance and cure cause of action. With respect to the
McCorpen issue, the Court advised defendant that it would be permitted to file its motion for
summary judgment after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct additional discovery as
to that defense. The Court further advised the parties that the trial date in this matter would be
continued due to the recent addition of new parties and to accommodate plaintiff’s continuing
medical treatment.
The parties also discussed defendants’ motion for review of the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s
denial of the protective order sought by defendants with respect to certain video surveillance
evidence. Defendants argued that the U.S. Magistrate Judge misinterpreted their good cause
argument and the law on the issue of whether the surveillance evidence should be produced prior
to plaintiff’s deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits the Court to review a
magistrate judge's order on non-dispositive pretrial matters if a party objects within fourteen days
after service of the order. The Court may reverse only upon a finding that the order is “clearly

erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. This Court has previously held that “a motion to review is
appropriate when a magistrate judge has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts,
or the applicable law, or when the party produces new evidence that could not have been
obtained through the exercise of due diligence.” Hunter v. Copeland, No. 03–2584, 2004 WL
1562832, at *1 (E.D. La. July 12, 2004) (Berrigan, J.). This Court does not find that the U.S.
Magistrate Judge clearly erred in ordering that the requested surveillance tape be disclosed
before plaintiff’s deposition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s punitive damages claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s denial of the protective
order sought by defendants with respect to the video surveillance evidence is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants have permission to file a timely motion
for summary judgment after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct additional discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion1 to continue is GRANTED.
All unexpired dates and deadlines will be rescheduled via a scheduling conference with this
Court’s courtroom deputy.

New Orleans, Louisiana, February 28, 2012.

__________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

R. Doc. No. 30.