Crutchfield et al v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans et al

Filing 117

ORDER AND REASONS denying 97 Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses FromLeonard C. Quick & Associates and for Contempt and Sanctions; granting 101 Motion to Compel Rule 34 Inspection as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONDA CRUTCHFIELD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 13-4801

SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF
NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

SECTION: "C"(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Upon review of the memoranda submitted by the parties and the arguments of
counsel at a hearing held on May 14, 2014, the Court issues the following Order and
Reasons in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses From
Leonard C. Quick & Associates and for Contempt and Sanctions and Hill Brothers’ Motion to
Compel Rule 34 Inspection, both of which were heard on May 14, 2014. (Rec. doc. 97, 101).
Plaintiffs’ repeated and ongoing requests for the “entire file” of Mr. Quick ignores
this Court’s previous Order and Reasons Establishing a Precertification Discovery Plan in
this case. (Rec. doc. 66). Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to cease their efforts to obtain the
entirety of Mr. Quick’s file through any means, including through Mr. Quick’s own counsel.
After hearing the arguments of counsel on the alleged deficiencies of Mr. Quick’s
subpoena responses, the Court declines to order the production of anything further,
pending its in camera review of certain materials withheld by Mr. Quick and/or the
Sewerage and Water Board (“SW&B”) as set forth below. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is
DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for contempt and sanctions is likewise DENIED.

1

As for the aforementioned materials withheld by SW&B on claims of privilege,
SW&B is ORDERED to produce those to the Court for in camera inspection by the close of
business on May 20, 2014. Any and all materials that have been withheld by SW&B or Mr.
Quick as privileged, including the 26 reports from Mr. Quick to counsel for the S&WB
provided to the Court for in camera inspection at the May 14 hearing, are to be identified
and described in an appropriate privilege log and provided to the Court for in camera
inspection by May 20, 2014. That privilege log shall fully comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and is to include, inter alia, a brief description of the document, the
privilege(s) being asserted, and on whose behalf the privilege is being asserted. Failure of
SW&B to submit a proper log will be deemed by this Court a waiver of any claims of
privilege over the subject documents.
With respect to Hill Brothers’ Motion to Compel Rule 34 Inspection, the Court
GRANTS the Motion with the following limitations. As a threshold matter, the Court refers
the parties to the parameters that were set forth in the Precertification Discovery Plan.
(Rec. doc. 66, p. 8). With those parameters in mind, the inspections shall go forward
between May 15 and 23, 2014, as described in Hill Brothers’ Request for Entry and as
further described in the emails of its counsel, subject to the following further modifications.
(Rec. docs. 101-5, 101-7, 101-8). No crack monitors are to be installed at the subject
residences, but Defendants’ experts may manipulate discrete areas of dirt surrounding the
houses to be inspected with a shovel or other similar implement. To the extent possible,
disruption to the earthen areas and to the sanctity of the Plaintiffs’ homes is to be kept to a
minimum. Counsel for Plaintiffs is/are ordered to be present at all such inspections, in
2

order to minimize concerns expressed over communications between the inspecting
experts and the individual Plaintiffs, who are also to be present at the inspection of their
respective homes.1 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel may prepare lists describing the alleged
damage to Plaintiffs’ homes, but such lists are to be completed in advance of the inspections
and the absence of such a list shall not prevent the inspections from going forward.
Further, the experts’ inspections will not be limited to what is set forth in any such
descriptive lists.
Finally, the Court notes that, despite its previous observation in its April 16 Minute
Entry (Rec. doc. 81) that Plaintiffs’ witness list bearing the names of some 107 fact
witnesses was “excessive in the extreme,” Plaintiffs chose to add names to that list, rather
than eliminate names, as directed by the Court. For the reasons recited in open court on
two occasions now, the Court strongly encourages the Plaintiffs to pare down their
recently-filed amended witness list in keeping with the scope of the evidentiary hearing
described by the District Judge in her Order and Reasons of January 30, 2014. (Rec. doc.
56).

Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of

May

, 2014.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

If there are multiple plaintiffs/class representatives for a particular home (i.e., husband and wife), only one
need be present at the inspection.

3