Slocum et al v. International Paper Company et al

Filing 571

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that IP's 567 Motion for expedited consideration of the motion in limine to exclude evidence of substances and releases not at issue and IP's 569 Motion for expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the Court's granting of Plaintiffs' motion to compel are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IP's 566 Motion in limine to exclude evidence of substance and releases not at issue is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IP's 568 Motion for reconsideration of the Court's granting of Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 3/15/2022. (cwa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHIRLEY SLOCUM, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-12563

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.
DERRICK SANDERS, ET AL.

NO. 16-12567

VERSUS
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.
BRENT JARRELL, ET AL.
VERSUS
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.

NO. 16-13793

SECTION "L" (1)

ORDER
Before the Court are the following motions filed by Defendant International Paper,
Company (“IP”): (1) “Motion in limine to exclude evidence of substances and releases not at
issue,” R. Doc. 566; (2) “Motion for expedited consideration of the motion in limine to exclude
evidence of substance and releases not at issue,” R. Doc. 567; (3) “Motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel,” R. Doc. 568; (4) “Motion for expedited
consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel,” R. Doc. 569. Plaintiffs filed an “Emergency Memorandum in Opposition to
International Paper’s Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Consideration of Defendant’s Motion in
Limine (Rec. Doc. 566 & 567),” R. Doc. 570. Having considered the briefing and the applicable
law, the Court now rules as follows.

IP’s motions for expedited consideration, R. Docs. 567 & 569, are GRANTED. The
Court further finds that IP’s “Motion in limine to exclude evidence of substance and releases not
at issue,” R. Doc. 566, is well-taken. From its inception, this now-six-year-old litigation has
concerned solely Defendant’s liability, if any, for the release of black liquor from its paper mill
in Bogalusa, Louisiana on June 10, 2015. Accordingly, the theories of liability, such as
negligence and nuisance, have hinged entirely on the release of black liquor. Furthermore, the
Court certified this matter as a class action and, ultimately, redefined the class based upon the
presence and concentrations of black liquor in the area surrounding the paper mill. R. Doc. 255.
And following a bench trial, the Court found IP liable for the release of black liquor into the
Bogalusa community. R. Doc. 509. In short, this case has always centered on the rupture of black
liquor from IP’s Bogalusa paper mill. Now, at the damages phase of this class action, the Court
will not permit Plaintiffs to inject wholly new issues pertaining to substances other than black
liquor when such issues were never pleaded or otherwise properly raised until this moment. It is
also far too late for Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to include issues pertaining to substances
allegedly released by IP besides black liquor.
On the other hand, the Court finds that IP has not shown that the exacting requisites for
granting a motion for reconsideration are satisfied. See Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that IP’s “Motion for expedited consideration of the motion in limine
to exclude evidence of substances and releases not at issue,” R. Doc. 567, and IP’s “Motion for
expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’
motion to compel,” R. Doc. 569, are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IP’s “Motion in limine to exclude evidence of
substance and releases not at issue,” R. Doc. 566, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IP’s “Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
granting of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel,” R. Doc. 568, is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of March, 2022.

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE