Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College (2014)

Our plain-English summary of Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, September 17, 2014).

Royce Leonard and others sued the LSU Board of Supervisors and other defendants, including Lockheed Martin Corporation, in a case that was removed to federal court in Louisiana. Leonard had developed mesothelioma and died on February 9, 2014, before he could be deposed. The plaintiffs alleged that he served in the U.S. Air Force as a pilot and training officer and flew several aircraft. They alleged, on information and belief, that the T-33 and F-80/P-80, made by Lockheed Martin, had asbestos components that exposed him. The plaintiffs moved to compel Lockheed Martin to answer discovery requests and to award attorney's fees. The magistrate judge denied the motion. Fact discovery had closed on August 29, 2014, and the plaintiffs had offered no evidence that Leonard was exposed to an asbestos-containing component of a Lockheed aircraft. The court called the requests overbroad and said the plaintiffs seemed to be hoping something would turn up. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the motion.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana
• Decided: September 17, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 13-565-JJB-SCR
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses and for attorney's fees from defendant Lockheed Martin, finding no factual basis shown for exposure to a Lockheed aircraft component and no good-faith effort to confer.

What the court held. A party seeking discovery over objection must show some factual basis that the decedent was exposed to an asbestos-containing component of the defendant's product; without it, the requests are overbroad and the motion to compel is denied.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Royce Leonard: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Lockheed Martin Corporation (manufacturer)
• Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College (May 27, 2014). The court granted Union Pacific Railroad Company's re-urged motion to dismiss, ruling that Union Pacific owed Royce Leonard no legal duty, so the Leonards' claims against it were dismissed.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

Leonard v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Dist.… ROYCE LEONARD, ET AL

v.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL

COLLEGE, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 13-565-JJB-SCR.

September 17, 2014.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Attorney's Fees Directed to Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation. Record document number 132. The motion is opposed.[1]

All of the parties' memoranda, arguments and exhibits have been considered, although not all of them are specifically addressed in this ruling.

This motion is denied essentially for the reasons stated in the defendant Lockheed Martin's opposition memoranda. Defendant objected to the plaintiffs' discovery requests, in part, as overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the "plaintiffs have provided no information or documents regarding alleged exposure(s) . . . to/or the alleged product(s), if any, for which plaintiffs contend Lockheed Martin may be responsible." Defendant argued that without some factual basis to conclude that the decedent, Royce Leonard, was actually exposed to an asbestos-containing component of an aircraft it manufactured, the plaintiffs' discovery requests are nothing more than a classic fishing expedition.

The deadline for the parties to complete their fact discovery was August 29, 2014.[2] At least by then, the plaintiffs should have some evidence of the decedent's exposure to an asbestos-containing component in one of the defendant's aircraft, or at least his exposure to a component for which they have a reasonable factual basis to believe contained asbestos. Given the defendant's objection, the plaintiffs would be expected to come forward with such evidence. But no such evidence is mentioned in the plaintiffs' motion or supporting memoranda. Absent such evidence, the plaintiffs' argument that the information sought is relevant to their claims and/or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is factually unsupported and wholly unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs alleged in their First Amending Petition for Damages that Royce Leonard served in the U.S. Air Force as a pilot and training officer, and that he flew the AT-6, T-28, T-33, T-34, F-80/P-80, T-37 and B-25 aircraft. Plaintiffs alleged, "[u]pon information and belief," that the T-33 and F-80/P-80 were manufactured by defendant Lockheed Martin and "contained asbestos components that led to his exposure to asbestos and ultimately the development of Mesothelioma." But the plaintiffs did not allege the actual facts which support their belief. Nor have the plaintiffs since come forward with the information they alleged they already have, or any other facts, to support the allegation that serving as a flight officer and T-33 and F-80/P-80 pilot exposed Royce Leonard to asbestos. Review of the plaintiffs' discovery responses, particularly Beverly Leonard's answers and objections to the defendant's interrogatories (which were neither signed nor verified by her and therefore do not comply with Rule 33(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.), and their August 29, 2014 supplemental Rule 26(a) disclosures, support the conclusion that they have no factual basis for their claim against defendant Lockheed Martin. Plaintiffs are essentially asking the court to approve overbroad discovery, and hoping that something will turn up to support their claim against defendant Lockheed Martin.

Defendant also argued that the plaintiffs' failed to sufficiently comply with the requirement of Rule 37(a)(1) to confer in an effort to obtain the discovery without court action. The communications between counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendant Lockheed Martin, along with the September 10, 2014 affidavit of counsel for the defendant,[3] do not support finding that

Leonard v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Dist.… there was a good faith effort to resolve this dispute without court action. Rather, it appears that the plaintiffs felt sure enough about their position that they were going to file a motion to compel discovery unless they got what they wanted from the defendant.[4]

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Attorney's Fees Directed to Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation is denied.

[1] Record document number 141. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum. Record document number 150. Defendant filed a surreply memorandum. Record document number 151.

[2] Record document number 69, Scheduling Order, p. 1, item A. The case was removed to this court on August 27, 2013, but Royce Leonard was not deposed before he died on February 9, 2014.

[3] Record document number 141-1.

[4] See record document number 144-5, August 14, 2014 letter from counsel for the plaintiffs to counsel for defendant.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites