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

Filing 57

ORDER AND REASONS denying 55 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re the Sewerage and Water Boards motion to quash the plaintiffs subpoena duces tecum to Leonard C. Quick & Associates and FFEB JV, LLC. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 02/03/2014.

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

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 13-4801

SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD
OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

SECTION “C” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to appeal the decision of the Magistrate
Judge granting the Sewerage and Water Board’s motion to quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces
tecum to Leonard Quick is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 55. The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge
granted the motion to quash without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to re-issue the subpoena. Rec.
Doc. 54.
Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge erred because the plaintiffs were entitled to
propound discovery to Mr. Quick under a case management order issued by the state court preremoval. However, plaintiffs fail to point to any order that would have authorized them to issue
the subpoena in question. In particular, they have not attached the January 11, 2013 state court
pre-certification discovery order that they reference in their motion. Rec. Doc. 55-1 at 4.
Therefore, the Court cannot evaluate the contents of the order or determine whether it authorized
plaintiffs to issue a subpoena to Mr. Quick on December 9, 2013. Given that the parties had
requested a continuance of pre-certification discovery deadlines and a new case management

1

order as early as March 27, 2013,1 it seems very likely that the plaintiffs’ subpoena was issued
after the deadlines provided in the January 11, 2013 order had already expired.
Finally, the plaintiffs’ contention that their subpoena to Mr. Quick was authorized by a
state court case management order is totally inconsistent with the position taken in their motion
to continue the submission date for the motion to certify a class. Rec. Doc. 28. In that motion, the
plaintiffs claimed that it was necessary for the Court to “enter a case management order for precertification discovery,” before it could gain access to Mr. Quick’s files. Id. at 2. For these
reasons, the Court cannot find that the Magistrate Judge clearly erred by granting the S&WB’s
motion to quash without prejudice, while this Court considered whether to order additional precertification discovery.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of February, 2014

HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiffs admit that the state court did not act on the requested continuance pre-removal.