Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management

Filing 270

RULING denying 242 Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Jill L. Craft. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/18/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IDELLA CORLEY
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, ET
AL

NUMBER 06-882-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Before the court is a Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Jill
L. Craft.

Record document number 242.

In response to the court’s

order dated October 11, 2011 the plaintiff filed an objection which
the court has considered.1
In the motion Craft stated she was served with the subpoena to
appear and testify at the trial set for October 24-28, 2011. Craft
stated that she formerly represented the plaintiff and the only
information she possesses that might be relevant was obtained
through their attorney client relationship. According to Craft the
subpoena

should

specifically

and

be

quashed

because

unequivocally

the

waived

plaintiff

her

attorney

has

not

client

privilege.
In her objection to the motion the plaintiff stated that she
has never waived the attorney client privilege related to any
communications exchanged during the time Craft represented her.

1

Record document number 255.

Plaintiff

argued

that

this

is

a

basis

for

not

allowing

the

defendants to introduce their Exhibit No. 58, which is the November
9, 2006 letter from Craft to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff argued

further that if the court allows the defendants to introduce the
letter, she is entitled to call Craft as a witness to rebut the
contents of the letter.

Plaintiff asserted that she is either

entitled to a ruling denying this Motion to Quash Subpoena or a
ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendants’
Uniform Pre-Trial Exhibit No. 58.2
This motion and the plaintiff’s objection establish that the
plaintiff has waived her attorney client privilege as to November
9, 2006 letter.3

However, a decision on its admissibility cannot

be made prior to trial.4

It is apparent that Craft would have

information relevant to whether the letter is admissible as a
business record under Rule 803(6), Fed.R.Evid.

2

For this reason,

Record document number 232.

3

Obviously, the letter from Craft to the plaintiff was
initially in the plaintiff’s possession. In the Defendants’
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Defendants’ Exhibit No. 58, the defendants stated that they
obtained the letter from the plaintiff during discovery. Record
document number 240.
In her objection to this motion, the
plaintiff did not dispute this statement by the defendants.
Plaintiff also acknowledged in her motion in limine that she was
questioned about the letter in her deposition. Record document
number 232.
4

See, Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, record
document number 269, pp. 4-7, denying Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
to Exclude Defendants’ Uniform Pre-trial Exhibit No. 58.
2

the motion cannot be granted based on the existence of the attorney
client privilege, which is the only ground asserted in support of
the motion.
Accordingly, the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Jill L.
Craft is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 18, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3