The opinion
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ELIAS JORGE “GEORGE” CIVIL ACTION
ICTECH-BENDECK,
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 18-7889
c/w 18-8071,
18-8218, 18-9312
WASTE CONNECTIONS SECTION: “E” (5)
BAYOU, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants
Related Case:
FREDERICK ADDISON, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs
VERSUS NO. 19-11133
c/w 19-14512
LOUISIANA REGIONAL SECTION: “E” (5)
LANDFILL COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants
Applies to: All Cases
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendants Waste
Connections Bayou, Inc., Waste Connections US, Inc., and Louisiana Regional Landfill
Company (collectively the “Waste Connections Defendants” or “Defendants”).1 Plaintiffs
filed an opposition.2
1 R. Doc. 486 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).
This case concerns the operation of the Jefferson Parish Landfill (the “Landfill”)
and the resulting odors emitted from the Landfill between July 1, 2017, and December
31, 2019. Having previously stated the facts of this case in detail, the Court will repeat
only the facts relevant to the instant motion. During discovery, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
to Compel Discovery Against the Waste Connections Defendants (hereinafter “Motion to
Compel”)3 and the Waste Connections Defendants filed a Motion to Quash the Addison
Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to SCS Engineers (hereinafter “Motion to Quash”).4 To date, the
Court has issued several orders resolving issues related to these contested discovery
motions.5 The Court’s Order and Reasons issued on January 2, 2024 presents
background relevant to the discovery motions.6
Presently, the only outstanding issues in these contested motions relate to
documents involving Stearns, Conrad & Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. (“SCS
Engineers”),7 which are categorized into nine “Categories of Work” as identified in
Attachment A to the Court’s Order and Reasons issued on January 12, 2024 (the
“January 12 Order”).8 In its January 12 Order, the Court granted in part and deferred in
part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, denied in part and deferred in part Defendants’
3 R. Doc. 380 (19-11133); R. Doc. 326 (18-7889). Defendants opposed. R. Doc. 383 (19-11133); R. Doc. 329
(18-7889). Plaintiffs replied. R. Doc. 389 (19-11133). Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum. R. Doc.
393 (19-11133). Defendants filed a supplemental reply. R. Doc. 394 (19-11133).
4 R. Doc. 368 (19-11133). Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Subpoena, which the Court construes as an
opposition to the Motion to Quash. R. Doc. 381 (19-11133). Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum in
Support of Their Motion to Quash. R. Doc. 388 (19-11133). See also Subpoena to Produce Documents
Issued to SCS Engineers, R. Doc. 381-5 (19-11133).
5 See R. Doc. 338 (18-7889); R. Doc. 402 (19-11133); R. Doc. 344 (18-7889); R. Doc. 417 (19-11133); R. Doc
382 (18-7889); R. Doc. 428 (19-11133).
6 R. Doc. 468, pp. 2-4 (19-11133); R. Doc. 397 (18-7889).
7 See Requests for Production 58-66, Addison Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to the Waste Connections Defendants, R. Doc. 329-2 at 8, 12 (18-7889).
8 See R. Doc. 406-1 (18-7889); R. Doc. 483-1 (19-11133). Attachment A is based on Attachment A to the
Letter from Megan R. Brillault, Counsel for the Waste Connections Defendants, to the Court (Dec. 1,
2023). The “Chart Showing Status of Production” attached to the December 1, 2023 Letter contained
comments from both the Waste Connections Defendants and Plaintiffs. The Court assigned numbers to
Category #2.9 Defendants now move the Court to reconsider certain aspects of its
January 12 Order.10
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory rulings.11 Under Rule 54(b), “any order that adjudicates
fewer than all the claims . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims.”12 Generally, courts in this district evaluate motions to
reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards as those governing motions to
alter or amend final judgments brought pursuant to Rule 59(e).13
Courts have considerable discretion when evaluating the merits of a Rule 59(e)
motion.14 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), the movant
“must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly
discovered evidence[,] [which] cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.”15 A motion for reconsideration,
however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’”16 Courts in this
district consider the following factors when applying Rule 59(e) standards:
9 R. Doc. 483 (19-11133); R. Doc. 406 (18-7889).
10 R. Doc. 486 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).
11 See, e.g., Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors, 19-11793, 2021 WL 3566302, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2021).
12 FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b).
13 Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010)
(“The general practice of this court has been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under
the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.”).
14 See, e.g., In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002); Baker v. Fedex Ground
Package, 04-3401, 2007 WL 3334387, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 7, 2007).
15 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
16 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 07-2904, 2009 WL 1565940, at *8 (E.D. La. June 3, 2009) (quoting
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence;
(3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest
injustice; and
(4) whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law.17
“Rule 54(b)’s approach to the interlocutory presentation of new arguments as the
case evolves can be more flexible, reflecting the inherent power of the rendering district
court to afford such relief from interlocutory judgment as justice requires.”18 “The
district court must exercise this broad discretion sparingly, however, to forestall the
perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and delays.”19
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In their motion, Waste Connections Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its
order that Defendants produce in whole documents WC_JPLF_SCS_PRIV_0126
(“0126”) and WC_JPLF_SCS_PRIV_0134 (“0134”),20 as identified in the privilege log
produced by Waste Connections Defendants on December 4, 2023.21 Defendants
contend documents 0126 and 0134 “include[] counsel’s discussion of legal strategy with
respect to the defense of the putative class actions,” and “seek to apply limited
redactions (i.e., a single sentence in each document) to protect this information from
disclosure.”22 Defendants further argue “[r]edaction of the limited portion of the email
17 Castrillo, 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the time limits of Rule 59 do not
apply in this matter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for
seeking reconsideration of final judgments. See Carter v. Farmers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 704
(5th Cir. 2002); Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 07-4833, 2012 WL 711842, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 5,
2012).
18 Muslow, 2020 WL 4471160, at *5 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
19 Tonti Management Co., Inc. v. Soggy Doggie, LLC, 19-13134, 2020 WL 9172035, at *6 (E.D. La. Aug.
13, 2020). See also Lightfoot, 07-4833, 2012 WL 711842, at * 3 (“When there exists no independent
reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of
judicial time and resources and should not be granted.”); Factor King, LLC v. Block Builders, LLC, 192 F.
Supp. 3d. 690, 693 (M.D. La. 2016) (“A manifest error is not shown by the disappointment of the losing
party, rather it is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.”).
20 Documents 0126 and 0134 are two versions of the same email chain.
21 R. Doc. 486 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).
necessary in order to contextualize any potential guidance [defense counsel] provided to
SCS.”23
In opposition, Plaintiffs assert Defendants’ motion fails under the Rule 59(e)
standard because it fails to assert “the Court was wrong in finding that Waste
Connections had intentionally waived the attorney-client privilege and work product
immunity.”24 Plaintiffs further argue that “if Waste Connections suffers any prejudice at
all through disclosure of the statement, that will occur as a result of Waste Connections’
own intentional waiver, not any error committed by the Court.”25
The Court is afforded broad discretion to reexamine interlocutory orders like the
January 12 Order.26 While motions for reconsideration are “sparingly granted,” such
action is warranted in this case.27 Plaintiffs correctly identify “[w]hat needs
contextualizing is the ‘misimpression created by Defendants’ when they publicly relied
upon the SCS Report as independent, unbiased, and based in science, when it was none
of those things.”28 Indeed, the Court limited “the scope of the waiver . . . only to those
documents pertaining to defense counsel’s involvement in preparation of the Report
that will enable Plaintiffs to qualify, explain, contextualize, and otherwise cure th[is]
misimpression created by Defendants.”29
Upon review, the Court finds certain information contained in Documents 0126
and 0134 is beyond the scope of Defendants’ subject matter waiver because it is not
necessary to contextualize Defendants’ misimpression concerning the unbiased and
23 Id. at p. 3.
24 R. Doc. 490, p. 2 (19-11133); R. Doc. 411 (18-7889).
25 Id. at p. 3.
26 See Tonti Management, 19-13134, 2020 WL 9172035, at *6.
27 See Baker, 04-3401, 2007 WL 3334387, at *1.
28 R. Doc. 490, p. 3 (19-11133); R. Doc. 411 (18-7889).
independent creation of the October 2018 Report. The Court further finds portions of
the documents that reveal counsel’s mental impressions with respect to the defense of
the putative class actions are protected under the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly,
Defendants are not required to produce these protected portions of Documents 0126
and 0134. Thus, Defendants must produce Documents 0126 and 0134 but may redact
from each document the third sentence in Megan Brillault’s October 21, 2018 10:04 AM
message, as proposed in Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.3°
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to
Reconsider is GRANTED.?!
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Waste Connections Defendants produce
Documents 0126 and 0134 to Plaintiffs by January 24, 2024. Defendants may redact
the third sentence of Megan Brillault’s October 21, 2018 10:04 AM message, as proposed
in Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.32
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of January, 2024.
SUSIE tong
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
30 In their Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants seek to redact “the third sentence in Ms. Brillault’s
October 21, 2018 10:04 AM message, in which after providing direction to SCS, Ms. Brillault makes a
statement that reveals counsel’s mental impressions and legal strategy with respect to the defense of the
putative class actions.” R. Doc. 486-1, p. 2 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).
31R, Doc. 486 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).
32 See R. Doc. 486-1, p. 2 (19-11133); R. Doc. 408 (18-7889).