Hugh A. Taylor v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation

• 2023-12-27

Date Filed2023-12-27

Docket2023-C-0759

JudgeJudge Daniel L. Dysart; Judge Paula A. Brown; Judge Dale N. Atkins

Cited0 times

StatusPublished

Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

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