adopting Brown, 218 F.3d at 427
How later courts described this case
- adopting Brown, 218 F.3d at 427
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
WESLEY LACHNEY CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1808
VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK
JOHN LEMOINE, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
MEMORANDUM RULING
The plaintiff, Wesley Lachney (“Lachney”), has filed an emergency motion for
a temporary restraining order that is in-effect a gag order. Record Document 24.
Lachney has requested a gag order because one of the defendants, Elster Smith, has
allegedly prepared a press release discussing his decision to terminate Lachney’s
employment, which resulted in this litigation. See Record Document 22-2, at 1-3.
Lachney filed his emergency motion for a gag order the day before the anticipated
publication of Smith’s press release. Id. at 2.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applies a “substantial
likelihood” standard when considering a gag order. United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d
415, 427 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this standard, a district court may implement a gag
order on parties and lawyers “if it determines that extrajudicial commentary by those
individuals would present a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the court’s ability to
conduct a fair trial.” Id. This standard applies in civil cases as well as criminal cases.
See Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 731 F.3d 488, 494 (5th Cir. 2013)
(adopting Brown, 218 F.3d at 427)).
In this case, Lachney has not made a showing of a substantial likelihood of
prejudice. Although Lachney alleged that the press release included claims of false
statements, Lachney did not identify specific parts of the two-page press release that
were false, how they were false, or articulate how that falsity would prejudice him.
Nevertheless, the Court has conducted an independent review of the disputed press
release. The release includes generalized statements rather than inflammatory
language, confidential details, or otherwise divisive commentary. Cf. Marceaux v.
Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't, No. 12-1532, 2012 WL 4194521, at *6 (W.D. La.
Sept. 19, 2012) (“The website itself contains wholly unprofessional and inappropriate
commentary|.]”); Greene v. DeMoss, No. 20-578, 2021 WL 3609300, at *8 (W.D. La.
Aug. 18, 2021) (“Many of the extrajudicial statements are racially divisive and
promote violence.”). Importantly, with this ruling, the Court finds only that the
proposed release is insufficient to show a substantial likelihood of prejudice and does
not otherwise enter a finding on the appropriateness of the press release. The
Plaintiff's motion is denied.
DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 21st day of April, 2026.
Uy C. Ve lhak
ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE