Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co v. Explo Systems Inc

Filing 179

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 172 Motion to Compel Answer to Deposition Question to Shelley Hopkins. Within 14 days, Shelly Hopkins shall provide plaintiffs with a verified discovery response disclosing the areas or matter that he has been designated or accepted as an expert witness in any criminal proceeding involving Explo Services or its owners, officers, or employees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 12/3/15. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY
INSURANCE CO.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3080

VS.

:

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

EXPLO SYSTEMS, INC.

:

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a
“Motion to Compel Answer to Deposition Question to Shelley Hopkins” [doc. # 172] filed by
plaintiffs Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“CFS”) and Seneca Specialty Insurance
Company (“Seneca”). No opposition has been filed. For reasons detailed below, the motion is
GRANTED.1
Background
On October 9, 2015, plaintiffs took the deposition of Mr. Shelly Hopkins,2 a criminal
investigator with the Louisiana State Police who was in charge of the investigation of the
explosion at Camp Minden.3 During his deposition, Mr. Hopkins testified that he had been
designated as an expert witness in the State of Louisiana’s criminal investigation of Explo and

1

As this motion is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor
dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the
standing order of this court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with
Rule 72(a) and LR 74.1(W).
2

Mr. Hopkins’ first name is spelled “Shelley” in the motion, but “Shelly” in the
deposition transcript.
3

For additional background details in this case, see doc. # 178.

several of its officers arising out of the same events that are at issue in this case. When
plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Hopkins to identify the areas in which he had been designated an
expert witness, counsel for the Louisiana Military Department instructed Mr. Hopkins not to
answer. Mr. Hopkins stated that he would heed his counsel’s advice. See Hopkins Depo., pgs.
111-115; M/Compel, Exh. 1).
On November 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel Mr. Hopkins to
answer the foregoing question. They contend that “[t]he information on the areas in which Mr.
Hopkins has been accepted as an expert witness in the ongoing criminal proceedings will help
this Court determine whether Mr. Hopkins should be allowed to testify as an expert and will also
assist the jury in determining the credibility of [his] testimony.” (M/Compel, Memo., pg. 3).
The court issued a notice of motion setting, but no response has been filed, and the time to do
has lapsed. (Notice of Motion Setting [doc. # 173]). Accordingly, the matter is ripe.
Analysis
Parties are entitled to obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to
relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Here, the areas on which Mr. Hopkins will be allowed to testify as an expert witness in the
criminal proceedings go to both his qualifications as an expert witness and his credibility as a
witness in this case. In response, Hopkins has made no showing that the information sought is
privileged or otherwise disproportionate to the needs of the case.

2

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel [doc. # 172] is hereby GRANTED.
Within the next 14 days from the date of this order, Shelly Hopkins shall provide plaintiffs with
a verified discovery response disclosing the areas or matter that he has been designated or
accepted as an expert witness in any criminal proceeding involving Explo Services or its owners,
officers, or employees.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 3rd day of December 2015.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3