The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AARON JORDAN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 21-1323
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT et SECTION: “T” (4)
al.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. doc. 119) filed by Defendant,
Downtown Development District (DDD) seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Rec. Doc.
118) on the partial grant of the Amended Motion to Compel. The motion is unopposed.
I. Background
On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff Aaron Jordan (“Jordan”) filed a complaint naming as defendants
Downtown Development District (DDD), City of New Orleans, Board of Commissioners of the
Downtown Development District, Jurt Weigel, and Keith Davis, alleging racial discrimination in
violation of Title VII. R. Doc. 1 at 1.
DDD hired Jordan, a white male, as a Public Safety Ranger in October 2018, employed him
for four months, and ultimately terminated him after a series of increasingly violent physical
altercations between him and the public. R. Doc. 105 at 1. Specifically, Jordan was terminated on
February 25, 2019, for allegedly violating DDD policy by acting in a law enforcement capacity
and for endangering the safety of himself and the public in three incidents not repeated here. See
id. at 2. Jordan filed suit on July 10, 2021, alleging harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation,
and wrongful termination. See, e.g., R. Doc. 1 at 19-20, 28-29, 40-41. 1
1 The only remaining claims asserted against the DDD are the Title VII claims.
1
On June 7, 2023, Jordan propounded his first set of interrogatories and third set of requests
for production of documents. R. Doc. 102 at 1. DDD did not respond by July 7, 2023, and on
July 9, 2023, Jordan emailed counsel for DDD regarding outstanding discovery responses. Id. On
July 10, 2023, counsel for DDD indicated to Jordan they were waiting on information from the
DDD and expected to provide responses the following week. R. Doc. 105 at 3. Also on July 10,
Jordan sent a “meet and confer” letter requesting a Rule 37 conference. Id. at 3; R. Doc. 102 at 2.
Jordan conducted the Rule 37 conference on July 13, 2023. R. Doc. 92-5. Counsel for
DDD repeated that they were waiting on information from DDD and expected to provide responses
the following week. R. Doc. 105 at 3. Jordan then filed a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 92). DDD
provided responses on July 21, 2023, which Jordan contends are deficient. Id. at 2. Jordan
conducted another Rule 37 conference on July 25, 2023. DDD again supplemented its responses
the same day to attempt to resolve Jordan’s qualms. The Court thereafter denied Jordan’s Motion
to Compel as moot (Rec. Doc. 99).
Jordan thereafter in his Amended Motion to Compel (Rec. Doc. 102) challenged the
sufficiency of six of DDD’s supplemental responses as deficient. R. Doc. 102 at 3. Jordan took
issue with DDD’s initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories
(Interrogatories) Nos. 3, 5, and 7, as well as Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production of
Documents (RFPs) Nos. 1, 3, and 5. Id. On September 11, 2023, the Court after considering the
position of the parties and the law granted the motion as to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatory
Nos.3, 5 and Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3. The motion was denied as to
Plaintiff’s first Set of Interrogatory No. 7 and Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production No. 5.
Now before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order. DDD contends that the
Court’s Order did not reflect the submission of the defendant’s supplemental responses to
2
Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 3, 5 that were attached to their Opposition (Rec. Doc.
105-1). Therefore, DDD contends that the portion of the order requiring the production of
Interrogatories Nos. 3, 5 should be reconsidered and clarified. R. doc. 119-1.
II. Standard of Review
Rule 54(b) allows parties to seek reconsideration of interlocutory orders and authorizes the
district court to “revise[ ] at any time” “any order or other decision ... [that] does not end the
action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2017).
“Under Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any
reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or
clarification of the substantive law.’” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990),
abrogated on other grounds, 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994)). Nonetheless, “[t]he power to reconsider
or modify interlocutory rulings ‘is committed to the discretion of the district court . . . .’” Id. at 337
(quoting Sant Annes Dev. Co., Inc. v. Trabich, 443 F. App’x 829, 832 (4th Cir. 2011)).
III. Analysis
DDD seeks a modification of the Court’s order on the Amended Motion to Compel because
their supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 3, 5 about Abron and
Holden were attached to its opposition to the motion a See Rec. doc. 105-1. Jordan does not oppose
the motion.
In review of the documents on the record, DDD is correct that it submitted a second
supplemental response to Interrogatory 3,5 Rec. doc. 105-1. The response provides as follows:
The DDD has made a more expansive search of its records including personnel files and has located
3
additional records pertaining to Abron and Holden. DDD proceeds to provide an explanation of
events that occurred on May 19, 2018, January 10, 2019, and December 17, 2018.
In the prior ruling the Court noted that DDD’s position was that it did not have a record of
the dates of the events. However, before the Court ruled on the Amended Motion to Compel, DDD
had already supplemented its responses to provide the dates as described above. The Court finds
that DDD’s position has merit and therefore modifies its order of September 11, 2023, to Deny
the Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent is seeks to compel further information regarding Plaintiffs First
Set of Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 5 as to Abron and Holden.
IV. Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that DDD’s Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 119), is GRANTED
for the reasons assigned above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order (R. Doc.118) is AMENDED to reflect that the
Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 5.
New Orlgans, Louisiana, this 26th day of January 2024.
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE