Bordelon v. Cutting Edge

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bordelon v. Cutting Edge

171 So. 3d 924, 2015 La. LEXIS 1251, 2015 WL 3369709

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 22, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-C-567

StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 3d 924 (Bordelon v. Cutting Edge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bordelon v. Cutting Edge, 171 So. 3d 924, 2015 La. LEXIS 1251, 2015 WL 3369709 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant and assigns reasons.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s denial of this writ application. I would grant and docket the writ, in order to examine the relationship between La. C.C.P. art. 1428, which imparts a duty to “seasonably” supplement a previous discovery response with respect to the “identity of each person expected to call a witness at trial ....,” and La. C.C.P. art. 1551, which sets forth a party’s responsibility to comply with a pre-trial order. It appears from the record before us that the defendants complied with the pre-trial order deadlines set forth by the trial court, yet the court apparently excluded their expert due to its conclusion that defendants failed to “seasonably” supplement its discovery responses. In my view, the dis-allowance of this expert’s testimony, under the circumstances and particularly in light of what appears to be an excessive monetary judgment, arguably amounts to an-abuse of discretion warranting our full review.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant and assigns reasons.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s denial of this writ application. I would grant and docket the writ, in order to examine the relationship between La. C.C.P. art. 1428, which imparts a duty to “seasonably” supplement a previous discovery response with respect to the “identity of each person expected to call a witness at trial ....,” and La. C.C.P. art. 1551, which sets forth a party’s responsibility to comply with a pre-trial order. It appears from the record before us that the defendants complied with the pre-trial order deadlines set forth by the trial court, yet the court apparently excluded their expert due to its conclusion that defendants failed to “seasonably” supplement its discovery responses. In my view, the dis-allowance of this expert’s testimony, under the circumstances and particularly in light of what appears to be an excessive monetary judgment, arguably amounts to an-abuse of discretion warranting our full review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 3d 924, 2015 La. LEXIS 1251, 2015 WL 3369709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordelon-v-cutting-edge-la-2015.