Lewis et al v. Cain et al

Filing 419

ORDER: Plaintiff's 417 MOTION to Exclude Evidence of Post-DiscoveryConditions is hereby GRANTED, and the 417 MOTION to Compel Additional Discovery is hereby DENIED. A bench trial on liability only, limited to evidence of the conditions as they existed on or before 9/30/2016 will go forward commencing on 10/9/2018. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/20/2018. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL DOCKET NO.: 3:15-CV-318

VERSUS

JUDGE: SHELLY DICK

BURL CAIN, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE: RICHARD BOURGEOIS

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Evidence of Post-Discovery
Conditions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Discovery.1 Defendants have
opposed the motion.2 For the following reasons the Motion to Exclude Evidence of PostDiscovery Conditions shall be GRANTED, and the alternative Motion to Compel
Additional Discovery shall be DENIED.
The Complaint in this matter was filed in May 2015. Discovery closed on
September 30, 2016. A Class Certification hearing was held on November 1-2, 2017, at
which time the Defendants offered evidence regarding alleged improvements in the
delivery of medical care occurring since the close of discovery. A bench trial3 of this
matter is scheduled to commence on October 9, 2018. Notwithstanding the deadline for
the completion of discovery, the Court granted leave to the parties to depose Will Call
and May Call witnesses identified by the parties4 on or before June 29, 2018.5 This was

1

Rec. Doc. 417.
Rec. Doc. 418.
3
Rec. Docs. 113, 115. The Court notes that the Minute Entry at Rec. Doc. 405 refers to a jury trial which is
in error.
4
Rec. Docs.410, 411.
5
Rec. Doc. 405.
2

1

largely due to the fact that the Defendants had yet to depose over thirty witnesses
identified by the Plaintiffs. In November 2017, after the discovery deadline and after the
Plaintiffs had deposed Dr. Raman Singh, the Medical Director for Department of
Corrections, Singh was terminated, and Plaintiffs sought to depose Dr. Singh’s
replacements, Dr. Pamela Hearn and Nurse Stacye Falgout. Defendants declined to
produce Dr. Hearn and Nurse Falgout for updated depositions. Plaintiffs also sought
consent from the Defendants to substitute five new class member witnesses who could
testify regarding recent medical issues.

Defendants refused to consent to the

substitution, prompting Plaintiffs to seek leave to substitute the five witnesses and to take
the depositions of Dr. Hearn and Ms. Falgout.6 In a subsequent status conference, the
Court advised that it was not inclined to grant the motion, noting that the situation at LSP
was fluid insofar as state employees come and go, and that trial evidence would need to
be limited to a “snapshot in time.” The Court indicated that if Plaintiffs could establish the
existence of constitutional violations during Dr. Singh’s tenure, it would not be necessary
to introduce evidence from subsequent medical directors. Finally, the Court indicated
that it was not inclined to re-open discovery. On May 15, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs’
motion and thereby declined Defendants’ request to re-open discovery.7
Efficient case management and fundamental fairness require that both Parties’
evidence be limited to a “snapshot in time.” The alternative would require that fact
discovery be re-opened, which gives rise to the potential for discovery motions, expert
reports and opinions supplemented, leading to additional expert discovery, all of which
would likely result in upsetting the trial date which is now three and a half years post filing.

6
7

Rec. Doc. 397.
Rec. Doc. 412.

2

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure’s “paramount command [is] the just, speedy, and
inexpensive resolution of disputes.”8 From this overarching and fundamental principal
evolves the inherent power of the Court to manage cases and its docket “so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”9 The Court finds that bifurcating the
issues of merits and remedy, and limiting the historical scope of the evidence on liability,
is “reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court's fair
administration of justice.”10
Accordingly, it is the Order of the Court that the trial of this matter be bifurcated
into separate liability and remedy phases. Trial on liability will proceed as scheduled, and
the evidence shall be limited to the healthcare conditions and the facility conditions as
they existed as of September 30, 2016. If Plaintiffs prevail on their constitutional and ADA
claims, evidence of subsequent conditions may be relevant at the remedy stage.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Evidence of Post-Discovery
Conditions is hereby GRANTED; the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Additional Discovery is
hereby DENIED. A bench trial on liability only, limited to evidence of the conditions as
they existed on or before September 30, 2016 will go forward commencing on October 9,
2018.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 20th day of June, 2018.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

8

Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1891 (2016).
Id. (citing, inter alia, Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
10
Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823–824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996).
9

3