Summary
Judge Lobrano concurs in the reversal of a summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. The concurrence emphasizes that a district court should address a pending motion to compel and permit reasonable discovery concerning corporate safety policies, procedures, prior criminal activity, and pet-related practices before adjudicating the merits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment before resolving the plaintiff's pending motion to compel and allowing discovery concerning corporate safety policies and practices.
- Whether a plaintiff alleging negligent failure to implement reasonable safety measures must be permitted a fair opportunity to obtain information uniquely within the corporate defendant's control before adjudication on the merits.
Holdings
- The district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without first addressing the pending motion to compel and allowing the requested discovery to proceed.
Key quotations
“At this juncture, Plaintiff need only allege facts that, if proven, could support the existence of a duty and breach within Louisiana’s duty/risk framework. Evidence bearing on foreseeability, prior incidents, and Walgreens’ security decisions lies largely within the defendant’s control. Denying discovery at this stage would effectively insulate those facts from examination.” (1)
Factual background
Barnett alleged that the apartment complex defendants failed to implement reasonable safety measures. He sought discovery regarding the complex's security policies, prior criminal activity in the area, and procedures governing a pet policy that allegedly required residents to walk their pets outside the premises. The requested information was largely within the corporate defendants' control, and the discovery motion remained pending when the district court granted summary judgment.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sought discovery concerning the apartment complex's safety policies and procedures, corporate documents, prior criminal activity, and a deposition of the corporate representative under La. C.C.P. art. 1442. His motion to compel was pending and scheduled for hearing on the same date as the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The district court considered only the summary-judgment motion, dismissed the claims without resolving the discovery dispute, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Further proceedings are required after the district court addresses the pending motion to compel and allows appropriate discovery before adjudicating the merits.