Transportation & Development v. Marquette Transportation Co L L C et al

Filing 285

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 284 Motion for Expedited Consideration and denying 283 Motion for Reconsideration of 281 Memorandum Ruling of Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/29/14. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0712

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, LLC and JOHN DOE

MAG. JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development’s (“DOTD”) “Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Alter/Amend Judgement [sic] with
Respect to the Trial Subpoena Issued to DOTD Secretary, Sherri LeBas” (“Motion for
Reconsideration”) [Doc. No. 283] and a Motion for Expedited Consideration of the DOTD’s Motion
for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 284]. DOTD moves the Court to reconsider or alter its August 27,
2014 Ruling [Doc. No. 281] and Order [Doc. No. 282] denying DOTD’s Motion to Quash.
Given the fact that trial is set for September 9, 2014, expedited consideration is appropriate.
Thus, the Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration today.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a district court may reconsider and reverse
its prior rulings on any interlocutory order “for any reason it deems sufficient.” Saqui v. Pride Cent.
Am., LLC, 595 F.3d 206, 210–11 (5th Cir. 2010). First, the Court finds that DOTD has largely
rehashed arguments that it has already considered in its initial ruling denying the DOTD’s Motion
to Quash. Second, the Court rejects DOTD’s new argument that La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3667.3 is “in
the nature of a privilege,” an argument that could and should have been raised in its original motion.

Section 13:3667.3 is a state court procedural rule, applicable when persons covered by the statute
are hailed to court. There is no state or federal case recognizing this procedural rule as creating a
testimonial privilege. See Tensas Poppadoc, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 49 So.3d 1020, 1022 (La.
App. 3rd Cir. 2010) (La. Rev. Stat. §13:3667.3 “sets forth the procedure for compelling the testimony
of certain persons as witnesses in a lawsuit.”). Further, the Court finds that it would not be
appropriate to recognize such a privilege. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 8 (1996) (“Rule 501
of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes federal courts to define new privileges by interpreting
‘common law principles . . . in the light of reason and experience.’”) ( quoting Fed. R. Evid. 501)).
Finally, the Court finds no hearing is necessary at this late date. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Expedited Consideration [Doc. No. 284] is GRANTED,
and the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 283] is DENIED. Defendants have sufficiently
demonstrated that Ms. LeBas should be compelled to testify. Any factual disputes about her
testimony will be addressed at trial.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 29th day of August, 2014.

2