The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHARON LEWIS, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 21-198-SM-RLB
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL
AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE,
Defendant
ORDER
The Court has broad discretion to manage jury selection1 and a duty to “maintain
control of the process” to “preserve fairness and at the same time protect legitimate
privacy.”2 Jury questionnaires have been sent to potential jurors and will be returned to
the Middle District of Louisiana Clerk of Court’s office on November 7, 2023. Those
responses will be provided to the parties. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2023, the parties will meet
and confer to discuss potential jurors they wish to strike. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that on or before November 20, 2023, the parties will jointly submit a list of potential
jurors whom they agree should be struck for cause, with a brief argument as to why each
should be struck, and separate lists of potential jurors whom each party moves to strike
for cause, based solely on information in the questionnaire, with argument in support of
the party’s position3
1 Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189 (1981).
2 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 512 (1984).
3 E.g., individuals who establish that they genuinely cannot serve because of some actual and immovable
personal or professional conflict, or individuals who unequivocally establish that they cannot follow the
Court’s instructions.
It is standard and accepted practice in this and other districts for parties to conduct
open-source internet research, including by viewing the public-facing social media
accounts of potential jurors.4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during jury selection and trial, the parties will
not ask to “follow” or “friend” any potential juror, juror, or familiar members of such
individuals, or make any analogous affirmative request, to gain access to posts or profiles
that are not otherwise publicly available. This prohibition does not apply to mere passive
viewing of publicly available information on sites like LinkedIn that may alert a potential
juror or juror to the fact that a particular person has reviewed his or her account.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will not conduct any form of
investigation on a potential juror, juror, or family members of such individuals—whether
online or otherwise—that could reasonable be perceived as vexatious or harassing. The
Court prohibits the use of information gained from juror research for any purpose other
than voir dire.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no party shall disclose during the pendency of
the trial any list of jurors, prospective jurors, responses to juror questionnaires provided
to the parties, juror strike sheets, or any notes containing identifying information of jurors
or prospective jurors, unless permitted by the Court to disclose such information.
4 See, e.g,. See D.C. Bar Ethics Op. 371, Social Media II: Use of Social Media in Providing Legal Services
(Nov. 2016) (“Competent and zealous representation . . . may require investigation of relevant information
from social media sites of jurors or potential jurors to discover bias or other relevant information for jury
selection. Accessing public social media cites of jurors or potential jurors is not prohibited . . . as long as
there is no communication by the lawyer with the juror.”)
The parties are admonished to handle juror questionnaires and jury sheets
containing jurors’ identifying information with care. Each party shall ensure that any
individual the party permits to access these sensitive materials understands that he or she
cannot publicly disclose the information.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of October, 2023.
SUSIE (on
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE