Opinion
Civil Action 21-198-SM-RLB
07-05-2023
SHARON LEWIS, Plaintiff v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery Related to Order and Reasons Compelling Production of Privileged Documents and Communications with and Depositions of Former Counsel by Defendant Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“the Board”). The Board has filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking a reversal of this Court's prior orders concerning (1) the application of the crime-fraud exception to the Board's invocation of attorney-client privilege with respect to certain communications and work product and (2) compelling production of certain documents and compelling depositions of certain individuals. The Board maintains the stay is necessary because the disclosure of its privileged communications and work product will cause it irreparable injury.
R. Doc. 356.
Dkt. No. 2, In re: Bd. of Supervisors of LSU, No. 23-20441 (5th Cir. July 3, 2023).
R. Doc. 316, as amended by R. Doc. 335.
R. Doc. 340.
See R. Doc. 356.
The Board does not have a right to a stay of this Court's order of May 17, 2023.The Board's right to the writ of mandamus it seeks is not clear and indisputable.Furthermore, the Board has other means to protect the documents and testimony at issue. A protective order is in place under which the Board may designate documents and deposition testimony as confidential. Additionally, the Court has freely offered the Board the opportunity for in camera review of documents prior to production in this action.
R. Doc. 340.
See In re Occidental Petroleum Corp., 217 F.3d 293, 295 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[F]or [a party] to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, it must show not only that the district court erred, but that it clearly and indisputably erred.”) (emphasis in original).
R. Doc. 204.
The Court finds staying its order is not appropriate under these circumstances. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery Related to Order and Reasons Compelling Production of Privileged Documents and Communications with and Depositions of Former Counsel is DENIED.