Ferguson v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona et al
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 94 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision, affirming 90 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 9/22/2020. (crt,McDonnell, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
TONY FERGUSON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1570
VERSUS
JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
DEMOREO LENOIR, AND
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO.
OF ARIZONA, LLC
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 94) filed by Plaintiff
Tony Ferguson. Plaintiff objects to and appeals the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
Order (Record Document 90) dated June 30, 2020, granting Defendants’ Motion for
Protective Order. For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Appeal (Record
Document 94) is DENIED and Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Memorandum Order (Record
Document 90) of June 30, 2020 is AFFIRMED.
This suit arises out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges Defendant driver,
Demoreo Lenoir (“Lenoir”), rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle in the eastbound lane of
Interstate 20. See Record Document 7-2. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff provided the
Defendant company, Swift Transportation (“Swift”), with a Proposed Notice of 30(b)(6)
Deposition (Record document 80-1) which contained 47 areas of inquiry and requested
63 sets of documents. On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff issued a second Proposed Notice of
30(b)(6) Deposition (Record Document 80-2) which contained requests for new topics
and documents in violation of the Magistrate Judge’s Scheduling Order (Record
Document 76). Plaintiff amended his Complaint on April 21, 2020. See Record Document
73. Defendants filed an Answer (Record Document 77) to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
on May 4, 2020, in which Swift admitted the accident was caused by the fault of Lenoir.
Swift further admitted that it was vicariously liable for the actions of Lenoir because he
was “acting within the course and scope of his employment with Swift Transportation at
the time of the accident.” Record Document 77 at ¶ 14. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff sent a
third Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Record Document 80-3) to Swift which requested
more documents and topics. In total, Plaintiff requested 80 different areas of inquiry and
65 documents. See Record Document 80.
Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order (Record Document 80) on May 29,
2020. Defendants requested the court limit the topics in Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
because Defendants believe them to be irrelevant following Swift’s admission of fault.
See Record Document 80. In an order signed on June 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge
Hornsby granted the motion. See Record Document 90. The Plaintiff appealed this
decision on July 14, 2020. See Record Document 49.
Any party may appeal a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter to a
district court judge under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rule 74.1 M & W. The decision by Magistrate Judge Hornsby to grant the Defendants’
motion to compel is not listed in 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions
that a magistrate may not conclusively decide. In reviewing a non-dispositive pretrial
matter, the Court must determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s order was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(a).
Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order excludes those topics which discuss whether
Swift was independently negligent. See Record Document 90. Plaintiff argues the
Magistrate Judge’s Order precludes the Plaintiff from conducting discovery on other
issues of fault or causes of action which may be brought against Swift. See Record
Document 94. However, Magistrate Judge Hornsby concluded that Louisiana case law
generally prohibits a plaintiff from maintaining claims directly against the employer once
the employer stipulates: 1) the accident was the fault of the employee’s negligence, 2)
the employee acted in the course and scope of employment, and 3) the employer is
vicariously liable. See generally Thomas v. Chambers, 2019 WL 1670745 (E.D. La. 2019)
(Vance, J.); Dennis v. Collins, 2016 WL 6637973 (W.D. La. 2016) (Hicks, J.). As result,
Magistrate Judge Hornsby found all topics listed by Plaintiff pertaining to Swift’s fault or
potential role in future claims are irrelevant to the present case.
In Dennis v. Collins, this Court held that a plaintiff “can never simultaneously
maintain both (1) a direct negligence cause of action against an employer and (2) a
negligence cause of action against an employee for which the plaintiff seeks to hold the
employer vicariously liable when the defendant stipulates that the employee acted in the
course and scope of employment.” Dennis, 2016 WL 6637973, at *1. This Court’s
decision in Dennis echoed the Louisiana Third Circuit’s reasoning that a claim of negligent
hiring is superfluous when the employer admits it is directly responsible for the negligence
of its employee. See generally Libersat v. J & K Trucking, Inc.¸772 So.2d 173, 179 (La.
App. 3 Cir. 2000).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s limitations placed on the Plaintiff’s
30(b)(6) deposition. Because Swift stipulates that it is 100 percent liable for all damages
found, any topics listed by Plaintiff discussing the Swift’s independent fault are
unnecessary. Further, those areas of inquiry related to any future claims against Swift are
irrelevant to the instant issue and are improper topics of discussion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 94) is DENIED
and the Memorandum Order of June 30, 2020 (Record Document 90) is AFFIRMED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 22nd day of
September, 2020.
______
__________
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?