Moore v. Lasalle Corr., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1007

• Citation: 429 F.Supp.3d 285
• Decision Date: 19 December 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1007
• Parties: Erie MOORE, Jr., et al. v. LASALLE CORRECTIONS, INC., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

429 F.Supp.3d 285

Erie MOORE, Jr., et al.

v.LASALLE CORRECTIONS, INC., et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1007

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

Signed December 19, 2019

Nelson Welch Cameron, Shreveport, LA, William Mark McKee, Law Office of Paul B. Wilkins, Columbia, LA, for Erie Moore, Jr., et al.

H. Bradford Calvit, Eli Jules Meaux, John D. Ryland, Provosty Sadler et al., Alexandria, LA, Lavalle Bernard Salomon, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Nanci S. Summersgill, City of Monroe, Monroe, LA, Edwin H Byrd, III, Pettiette Armand et al., Shreveport, LA, James Bryan Mullaly, Thomas Allen Usry, Usry & Weeks, New Orleans, LA, for LaSalle Corrections, Inc., et al.

RULING

Terry A. Doughty, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendant LaSalle Corrections, Inc.'s ("LaSalle") Objection to and Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's October 31, 2019 Memorandum Order [Doc. No. 179] insofar as it denied LaSalle's motion for a protective order to prevent discovery as to LaSalle's financial information. [Doc. No. 181]. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition [Doc. No. 183]. LaSalle has filed a reply to the opposition [Doc. No. 185]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the appeal, and GRANTS LaSalle's motion for a protective order [Doc. No. 174].

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq. , by the children of Eric Moore, Sr., (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), and alleges that his death was caused by the actions of multiple defendants employed by LaSalle, a private company that works under contract with local political subdivisions to provide correction services. On October 12, 2015, Moore was arrested and taken to Richwood Correctional Center ("RCC"), which is operated by LaSalle. Plaintiffs allege that one or more RCC guards beat Moore in the head, leading to his death. Plaintiffs allege RCC and LaSalle failed to adequately supervise the correctional officers, failed to investigate the cause of death, failed to take remedial actions, failed to train in defensive tactics, and failed to implement policies to require adequate monitoring of cells and provide required screening of newly arrested inmates.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of LaSalle seeking, in part, information as to the "[c]urrent financial net worth of LaSalle Management, to include the net value and profit and balance sheets of LaSalle." [Doc. No. 174, p. 3]. On October 24, 2019, LaSalle responded with a Motion for Protective Order in which it argued, with regard to the request for financial information, that it cannot be cast for punitive damages and therefore the financial information sought by Plaintiffs was irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this case [Id., p. 6-7].

On October 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum Order denying LaSalle's Motion for Protective Order with regard to its financial records, on the basis that:

Though LaSalle argues that the Fifth Circuit would hold that punitive damages are not available against a prison, it does not cite to, and the undersigned is unaware of, any controlling case law holding that private corporations are not liable for punitive damages. Thus, in the absence of a ruling on this underlying legal issue, it is relevant to know about LaSalle's financials for purposes of pursuing a possible award of punitive damages.

[Doc. No. 179, pp. 4-5]

On November 14, 2019, LaSalle filed the pending Objection and Appeal [Doc. No. 181]. It has been fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), this Court's review of the Magistrate Judge's order denying LaSalle's motion for a protective order is subject to the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard:

(a) Non-dispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings, and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), "[a] judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."

B. Analysis

1. Right to Punitive Damages

The parties agree that the Fifth Circuit has not directly addressed whether punitive damages can be awarded against a private company working under contract with a local political subdivision to provide correction services. The Magistrate Judge based her decision denying the protective order on the absence of case-law on the underlying legal issue of whether private prison management companies are (or are not) immune from punitive damages. [Doc. No. 179, p. 4]. LaSalle, however, argues that the existence or non-existence of a case on point cannot be the dispositive standard here, as such would present an unsolvable dilemma to parties and courts seeking to address res nova issues. LaSalle contends that courts must be able to rule on new issues without prior case law or else jurisprudence will stagnate. The Court finds that LaSalle's argument has merit and will, therefore, address this res nova issue.

To support its contention that it is entitled to a protective order barring discovery of information relative to its financial circumstances, LaSalle asserts that the totality of Fifth Circuit jurisprudence concerning § 1983 actions against private entities shows the likelihood of allowing punitive damages against LaSalle is so low as to be non-existent. LaSalle further asserts that, where punitive damages are not available, the net worth of a party is irrelevant. Therefore, according to LaSalle, the Magistrate Judge's decision failing to grant the requested protective order is clear error and should be reversed.

Plaintiffs respond that the only established limitation upon Section 1983 punitive damages is that they may not be sought against a public body. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. , 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). Since LaSalle is a private corporation , Plaintiffs argue that this limitation does not apply, and, therefore, LaSalle can be liable for Section 1983 punitive damages. Thus, LaSalle is not entitled to a protective order, according to Plaintiffs.

LaSalle replies that it is likely that, when presented with the issue, the Fifth Circuit would rule that private prison management companies are immune from punitive damages, based on the Fifth Circuit's consistent application of other, similar § 1983 rulings to private prison management companies.

The Court agrees with LaSalle. A review of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq. , shows that the punitive damages at issue are not statutory. The governing civil rights statutes do not detail the circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded. Instead, punitive damages in civil rights cases are a product of a jurisprudential gloss on the common law. See Smith v. Wade , 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) ; Carey v. Piphus , 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). A part of that gloss is that punitive damages may not be awarded against a municipality. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. , 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981).

In City of Newport , the Supreme Court discussed several reasons why punitive damages should not be awarded against a municipality. First, punitive damages allowed against a municipality would serve to harm innocent taxpayers who would likely bear the brunt of any damages which would be paid out of the public fisc. On that matter, the Supreme Court found, "in general, courts viewed punitive damages as contrary to sound public policy, because such awards would burden the very taxpayers and citizens for whose benefit the wrongdoer was being chastised." Id. at 263, 101 S.Ct. 2748. Second, punitive damages typically seek, "to punish the tortfeasor whose wrongful action was intentional or malicious, and to deter him and others from similar extreme conduct." Id. at 266-267, 101 S.Ct. 2748. However, this purpose breaks down when punitive damages are sought against an entity rather than an individual. "If a government official acts knowingly and maliciously to deprive others of their civil rights, he may become the appropriate object of the community's vindictive sentiments ... A municipality, however, can have no malice independent of the malice of its officials. Damages awarded for punitive purposes, therefore, are not sensibly assessed against the governmental entity itself." Id. at 267, 101 S.Ct. 2748. Finally, the deterrent purpose of § 1983 would not be advanced by assessing punitive damages against a municipality, where that purpose could be satisfied fully by assessing those damages against the individuals who may have committed the constitutional violations at issue.

The Court's reasoning in City of Newport easily extends to a private entity which has assumed a traditionally governmental role or function via contract with a governmental entity. Considering the reality of the private prison industry, LaSalle's contractual relationship with the Town of Richwood ensures that a punitive damage award against LaSalle would harm the public fisc and citizens of the Town. The Town entered into an agreement with LaSalle to provide a governmental function that the Town, or another governmental entity, would have provided otherwise. If a punitive damage award is granted against LaSalle, that award, and the threat of future punitive damage awards, necessarily increases...