Wilkerson, et al v. Stalder, et al

Filing 412

RULING ON APPEAL: Therefore, the Magistrate Judges 374 Order granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is AFFIRMED, Defendants Appeals 387 , 388 are DENIED. Defendants 396 Motion to Strike is dismissed as MOOT.. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 9/20/2011. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBERT KING WILKERSON, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 00-304-JJB-DLD
RICHARD STALDER, ET AL.

RULING ON APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Appeal (docs. 387, 388)
from an Order from the Magistrate Judge (doc. 374). Plaintiffs have filed an
opposition (doc. 391). Defendants have also filed a Motion to Strike exhibits from
Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ appeal. Doc. 396. Oral argument is not
necessary.
Background
The appealed order grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of
certain documents, consisting of twenty-three (23) emails exchanged between an
employee of the Louisiana Department of Justice (LDOJ) and an employee of the
Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) between November 14, 2008 and December
12, 2008. Defendants1 claim they are subject to attorney-client privilege, work
product doctrine, and the law enforcement privilege.

1

The State of Louisiana (“State”) and the Louisiana Department of Justice (“LDOJ”) filed separate
appeals. The LDOJ has not yet moved to intervene in the case; its involvement in this matter relates
solely to its assertion of the law enforcement privilege.

1

Discussion
Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may
object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive, pre-trial order within fourteen (14)
days of being served with a copy of the order.

It is well settled law that

magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters.
Merritt v. International Bro. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1981).
Rulings by magistrate judges are reviewed under a “clearly erroneous and
contrary to law” standard.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

In this Circuit, the clearly

erroneous standard gives “extreme deference” to the lower court. Lopez v.
Current Director of Texas Economic Dev. Com., 807 F.2d 430, 434 n. 3 (5th Cir.
1987). A magistrate judge’s finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing Court on
the entire evidence is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
When a party appeals a magistrate judge’s ruling on the basis that it is contrary
to law, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions on a de
novo basis. Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661, 665 (N.D. Tex. 1994).
After a thorough review of the evidence, the Court finds no clear error on
the part of the Magistrate Judge in her Order. Further, the Court finds that none
of the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions are contrary to law. In reaching this
decision, the Court purposely ignored the contested Exhibits C and D from
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Appeal (doc. 391).

2

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Order (doc. 374) granting Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel is AFFIRMED, Defendants’ Appeals (docs. 387, 388) are
DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (doc. 396) is dismissed as MOOT.

September 21, 2011.
Signed in Baton Rouge, LA this 20th day of September, 2011.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3