The opinion
HUGH A. TAYLOR * NO. 2023-C-0759
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
EXXON MOBIL *
CORPORATION AND FOURTH CIRCUIT
EXXONMOBIL OIL *
CORPORATION, ET. AL. STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2021-06263, DIVISION “F-14”
Honorable Jennifer M. Medley,
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Dale N.
Atkins)
Gerolyn P. Roussel
Perry J. Roussel, Jr.
Jonathan B. Clement
Lauren R. Clement
Benjamin P. Dinehart
ROUSSEL & CLEMENT
1550 West Causeway Approach
Mandeville, Louisiana 70471
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
David M. Bienvenu, Jr.,
John Allain Viator,
Melissa Jade Avant,
Thomas C. Naquin,
BIENVENU, FOCO & VIATOR, LLC
4210 Bluebonnet Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
James M. Williams,
Daniel E. Buras, Jr.,
Inemesit U. O’Boyle,
Patrick R. Follette,
Marshall C. Watson,
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN,
WILLIAMS, RECILE & HAYES, L.L.P.
One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
Metairie, LA 70001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
WRIT GRANTED;
REVERSED AND REMANDED
DECEMBER 27, 2023
PAB
DLD
DNA
Relator, Hugh A. Taylor, seeks supervisory review of the district court’s
September 19, 2023 judgment,1 which partially granted Respondents, Exxon Mobil
Corporation and Exxonmobil Oil Corporations’ Daubert2 motion and motion in
limine to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Rodney J. Landreneau, M.D.
(“Dr. Landreneau”), Relator’s thoracic surgeon. For the reasons that follow, we
grant Relator’s supervisory writ application, reverse the September 19, 2023
judgment of the district court and remand this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Relator asserts the district court erred procedurally and substantively in
partially granting Respondent’s Daubert motion and motion in limine to exclude
the opinions and testimony of Dr. Rodney J. Landreneau, M.D. Procedurally,
Relator argues that the district court failed to follow the mandates of La. C.C.P. art.
1 The notice of judgment was not mailed until October 5, 2023. On October 9, 2023, Relator
filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Alternatively, Motion to Reconsider the Ruling Regarding
Dr. Rodney Landreneau and Request for Expedited Consideration, which the district court
denied on October 13, 2023. Relator timely filed his notice of intent to seek this writ on October
19, 2023, and was assigned a December 4, 2023 return date. Relator timely filed this writ
application on November 31, 2023.
2 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
1
1425(F) to issue reasons for its judgment addressing La. C.E. arts. 702 through
705. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1425(F) provides, in pertinent
part:
(1) Any party may file a motion for a pretrial hearing to determine
whether a witness qualifies as an expert or whether the methodologies
employed by such witness are reliable under Articles 702 through 705
of the Louisiana Code of Evidence. The motion shall be filed not later
than sixty days prior to district and shall set forth sufficient allegations
showing the necessity for these determinations by the court.
(2) The court shall hold a contradictory hearing and shall rule on the
motion not later than thirty days prior to the trial. At the hearing, the
court shall consider the qualifications and methodologies of the
proposed witness based upon the provisions of Articles
104(A) and 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence. For
good cause shown, the court may allow live testimony at the
contradictory hearing.
(3) If the ruling of the court is made at the conclusion of the hearing,
the court shall recite orally its findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and reasons for judgment. If the matter is taken under advisement, the
court shall render its ruling and provide written findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment not later than five days
after the hearing.
(4) The findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for
judgment shall be made part of the record of the proceedings. The
findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment shall
specifically include and address:
(a) The elements required to be satisfied for a person to testify
under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.
(b) The evidence presented at the hearing to satisfy the requirements
of Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence at
trial.
(c) A decision by the judge as to whether or not a person shall be
allowed to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana
Code of Evidence at trial.
2
(d) The reasons of the judge detailing in law and fact why a person
shall be allowed or disallowed to testify under Articles 702 through
705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.
(Emphasis added).
In support, Relator points to this Court’s prior decision in this case. In that
instance, this Court reversed the judgment issued by the district court on the same
date as the judgment from which Relator now seeks review. In reversing the
district court’s September 18, 2023 judgment granting this writ’s Relator’s motion
to exclude certain testimony of Dr. Jennifer Pierce, this Court reasoned:
In granting plaintiff’s motion in limine from the bench, the [district]
court only reasoned that the dose reconstruction testimony would lead
to jury confusion. Written reasons for judgment were not provided.
Without reaching the merits of plaintiff’s motion in limine, we
conclude that the [district] court committed legal error in excluding
Dr. Pierce’s testimony without complying with the mandatory
requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 1425(F) and without properly applying
the factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), as adopted by
the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.
1993).
Taylor v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et. al. 2023-C-0631 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/14/23),
unpub.
In the matter now before us, the judgment from which Relator seeks review
in this writ application provides no reasoning. At the September 5, 2023 hearing,
the district court answered some questions indicating some of its reasons, but
stated no specific findings of fact, conclusions of law or reasons for judgment that
in any way addressed La. C.E. arts. 702-705. Accordingly, we can once again
reach our decision without considering the merits of Respondents’ motions.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the district court’s September 19, 2023
judgment, which partially granted Respondents’ Daubert motion and motion in
3
limine to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Rodney J. Landreneau, M.D.,
is vacated and set aside. The matter is remanded to the district court for
compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 1425(F).
WRIT GRANTED;
REVERSED AND REMANDED
4