Tellis et al v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 611

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 606 Motion for Protective Order. For the reasons set forth in Memorandum Order, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' request for sanctions or fees is denied. See Memorandum Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 7/25/2022. (crt,Keller, J)

Case 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH Document 611 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 35066

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-cv-541

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE

JAMES M LEBLANC, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order. Doc. 606. The motion
seeks to quash or modify a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice of Plaintiff, DRLA, because,
among other arguments, the topics are premature, beyond the scope of permitted discovery,
and seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product
immunity. Defendants argue that DRLA is attempting to rehash arguments the court
previously rejected.
The deposition is set for July 27, 2022, so the court granted expedited consideration.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Topic 1: Granted in part. This request is vague and overbroad. The topic is revised
to seek testimony regarding whether any of the current conditions and/or changes made at
DWCC that occurred since the filing of this lawsuit have resolved any of the issues
identified in the complaint as amended. Brazos River Authority v. GE Iconics, 469 F.3d
416, 433 (5th Cir. 2006)(“This extends not only to facts, but also to subjective beliefs and
opinions.”).

Case 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH Document 611 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 35067

Topic 2: Granted. The information sought is premature. The court has not yet
issued the Phase 1 ruling.
Topic 3: Granted. The topic is too vague.
Topic 4: Granted in part. “Documents requested through discovery” is too vague.
Part of this topic will overlap with modified Topic 1. The Phase 1 ruling aspect is
premature.
Topics 5 and 6: Denied. These are proper topics, which overlap with modified
Topic 1.
Topic 7: Denied. This is a proper topic.
Topic 8: Denied. This overlaps with modified Topic 1.
Topic 9: Granted. Attorney-client privileged and work product immunity.
Topics 10 and 11: Granted. Premature.
Defendants’ request for sanctions or fees is denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 25th day of July, 2022.

Page 2 of 2