Ferrington v. McMoran Exploration Company

Filing 107

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 76 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/23/13. (jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TERRY FERRINGTON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-588

MCMORAN EXPLORATION CO., ET
AL.

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Review of Magistrate
Judge’s Decision (Rec. Doc. 76) filed by McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC.
Plaintiff Terry Ferrington opposes the motion. The motion,
scheduled for submission on August 28, 2013, is before the Court
on the briefs without oral argument.1
McMoRan challenges the magistrate judge’s order denying its
motion to compel Ferrington to produce his tax returns and social
security disability claim records. (Rec. Docs. 68 & 80).
Magistrate Judge Roby issued a well-reasoned opinion explaining
the denial.2 Judge Roby noted that the tax return request was
overbroad and that McMoRan already had the pertinent pay data in
its possession. (Rec. Doc. 80 at 6). With respect to the social
security records, McMoRan could not articulate why it required
social security records for the last ten years in light of
1

Oral argument has been requested but the Court is
persuaded that the parties’ briefing is more than adequate in
light of the issues presented.
2

The Court notes that the reasons were filed into the
record after McMoRan filed its objection.

Ferrington’s disability having occurred in 2011 and in light of
the full access to medical records that McMoRan has already been
given. (Rec. Doc. 80 at 7).3
The Court considers McMoRan’s challenges to the ruling in
the context of Rule 72 which requires the Court to modify or set
aside any part of an order that is clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

McMoRan has not demonstrated that Magistrate Judge Roby’s ruling
was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
After the motion was under submission McMoRan moved for
leave to file yet another memorandum in support of its challenge
(Rec. Doc. 99). In that memorandum McMoRan points out that
Ferrington has argued to the Court that he has no intention of
introducing tax records in support of his claims yet Ferrington
nonetheless recently filed his exhibit list and listed his tax
returns. McMoRan contends Plaintiff has been engaging in this
type of behavior throughout the litigation. (Id.). McMoRan argues
that this alone should persuade the Court to order Ferrington to
produce the disputed records. (Id.).
The Court reviewed Ferrington’s exhibit list (Rec. Doc. 91)
after reading McMoRan’s supplemental memo and was astonished to
find that the first trial exhibit listed is “Plaintiff’s tax

3

Moreover, the magistrate judge alluded to the fact that
the discovery requests themselves were not absolutely clear as to
what McMoRan had been seeking. (Rec. Doc. 80 at 6-7).
2

returns . . . .,” although the specific years are not mentioned.
Given that Ferrington intends to use his tax returns as trial
exhibits they must be produced. While the Court does believe that
ten years worth of returns is overbroad, the Court will allow
McMoRan to obtain the records for 2008 through present.4 This
span of time should give McMoRan’s economic expert a sufficient
time base to perform calculations.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Review of Magistrate
Judge’s Decision (Rec. Doc. 76) filed by McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as
to Ferrington’s tax returns from 2008 through present and DENIED
as to the social security claims file. On or before Friday,
October 4, 2013, Ferrington shall either produce the tax returns
or execute the appropriate authorization to allow McMoRan to
obtain them.
September 23, 2013

_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Ferrington must produce the tax returns from 2008 through
present even if he only intended to use a subset of these years
at trial. Moreover, Ferrington must now produce the tax returns
even if he opts to withdraw the exhibit from his trial list.
3