Ariza v. Loomis Armored US, LLC

Filing 118

RULING: The 83 Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Liza C. Ariza For the Unauthorized Procurement of Documents From Loomis's Premises and Request for theCourt to Compel Plaintiff to Identify the Individual Who Conducted the Unauthorized Entry and At Whose Request is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/4/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LIZA C. ARIZA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-419-JWD-SCR
LOOMIS ARMORED US, L.L.C.
RULING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the court is the Defendant Loomis Armored US, LLC’s
Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Liza C. Ariza For the
Unauthorized Procurement of Documents From Loomis’s Premises and
Request

for

the

Court

to

Compel

Plaintiff

to

Identify

the

Individual Who Conducted the Unauthorized Entry and At Whose
Request.

Record document number 83.

The motion is opposed.1

Defendant filed this motion seeking redress for the alleged
unauthorized procurement of photographs of (1) documents which
identify

eight

Loomis

employees

and

their

weapons

training

scheduled for April 22, 2014; (2) the daily terminal closing
checklist dated October 15, 2013; and (3) the inside of the Loomis
armored vehicle and of the inside of the vault facility. Defendant
argued that these photographs were part of the plaintiff’s expert’s
file, which was produced at his deposition on August 6, 2014.
Defendant asserted that the plaintiff directly contacted one of the
defendant’s

1

employees

and

asked

the

employee

Record document number 90. Defendant
memorandum. Record document number 93.

to

access

filed

a

and

reply

photograph documents which were located on the defendant’s main
computer, which is in a locked room.

Defendant requested that the

plaintiff be sanctioned for these actions and compelled to identify
the employee who obtained the photographs and the person who
directed the employee.
Plaintiff asserted that the photographs were obtained as part
of an independent investigation, which is not prohibited by Rule
26, Fed.R.Civ.P.
took

the

Plaintiff asserted that the Loomis employee who

photographs

had

authority

to

enter

the

defendant’s

property and the rooms where the photographs were taken, and to
operate the equipment shown in the photographs. Plaintiff asserted
that the contact with the employee was proper under Louisiana’s
professional ethical rules.

Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s

request for identification of the employee is untimely because fact
discovery ended on May 31, 2014.

Plaintiff also noted that the

defendant’s request for identification was made more than six
months after its receipt of the photographs.

Regardless, the

plaintiff argued that this information was protected as attorney
work product.
Defendant argued that the plaintiff’s agent was not authorized
to photograph the records at issue and that only a supervisory
employee would have access to the computer system which contained
the photographed documents.

Defendant asserted that its employee

handbook strictly prohibits employees from having video cell phones
on company property and/or taking photographs of anything on the

2

premises.

Defendant argued that procurement of these documents

pose a risk to its operations and employees in light of the nature
of its business.

Defendant also argued that the timeliness of its

motion to compel should be overlooked because the photographs were
obtained prior to the fact discovery completion deadline, but were
produced after deadline.
Defendant did not argue that the photographs are responsive to
any

timely-served

documents.

interrogatory

or

request

for

production

of

And obviously Loomis already possessed the documents

and had access to its facility and the vehicle.

Loomis had the

photographs for more than six months before filing this motion.
That it did not realize it had the photographs cannot be blamed on
the plaintiff.

Defendant’s motion is untimely.

Untimeliness aside, the defendant did not cite any authority
which

authorizes

the

court

to

grant

the

relief

requested.

Defendant has not shown that Rules 11 or 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., are
applicable in these circumstances, or that the court has the
inherent

authority

to

require

the

plaintiff

to

identify

cooperating Loomis employee or the person directing him.2

the
Any

issues concerning the authenticity of the photographs or the
documents they depict, the foundation for testimony regarding them,
or the credibility of any witness offered to establish either, can
be addressed when the photographs are offered in evidence.

2

It is not necessary to address whether the identity of the
Loomis employee is protected work product.
3

Accordingly, the Defendant Loomis Armored US, LLC’s Motion for
Sanctions Against Plaintiff Liza C. Ariza For the Unauthorized
Procurement of Documents From Loomis’s Premises and Request for the
Court to Compel Plaintiff to Identify the Individual Who Conducted
the Unauthorized Entry and At Whose Request is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 4, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4