Marrogi v. Howard

Summary

The Supreme Court of Louisiana answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning whether witness immunity bars a malpractice or contract claim by a client against a retained expert witness. The court held that witness immunity does not shield a retained expert from claims alleging deficient performance of professional and contractual litigation-support duties. The court distinguished retained experts from adverse witnesses and court-appointed professionals entitled to immunity.

Holdings

1. The certified question presented a justiciable controversy and was not impermissibly advisory or contingent. The Louisiana Supreme Court would not revisit the federal courts' determination that personal jurisdiction existed because the Fifth Circuit had noted that Howard had not appealed or cross-appealed that ruling.
2. Louisiana's witness-immunity doctrine does not bar a claim by a party against a retained expert whom the party hired when the claim alleges negligent performance of agreed professional and contractual litigation-support services, including the formulation of opinions and recommendations and preparation for or presentation of testimony.
3. A retained expert may not be held liable merely because another expert or authoritative source disagrees with the expert's opinion; liability may arise from negligent performance of professional services underlying the opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Louisiana's witness-immunity doctrine bars a claim by a client against a retained expert for negligent performance of agreed litigation-support services, including formulation of opinions and recommendations and preparation for or presentation of testimony.
2. Whether the certified question presented an impermissible advisory or contingent opinion because of a dispute concerning federal personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

other