Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C.
2011 La. LEXIS 3007
| La. | 2011Background
- DOTD filed suit against OHH and others for property damage to I-10 overpasses in Acadia Parish (Aug. 30, 2006).
- OHH propounded discovery (Mar. 15, 2007); DOTD did not timely respond as required by art. 1458.
- OHH sent a Rule 10.1 discovery conference request to DOTD on Apr. 24, 2007; DOTD later served some responses to OHH only.
- No further formal action occurred until Apr. 22, 2010, when DOTD moved to respond; subsequent dismissal for abandonment followed (May 24, 2010).
- Court of Appeal agreed DOTD’s responses to OHH alone and the Apr. 24, 2007 letter did not interrupt abandonment.
- Supreme Court reversed, holding that scheduling a Rule 10.1 conference constitutes a step interrupting abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 10.1 conference scheduling is a step to interrupt abandonment. | DOTD argues scheduling a conference hastens discovery and interrupts abandonment. | OHH/defendants contend the letter was extrajudicial and not a formal step. | Yes; scheduling a Rule 10.1 conference is a step interrupting abandonment. |
| Whether OHH’s Apr. 24, 2007 letter constitutes a step under Article 561(A)(1) or 561(B). | Letter should be analyzed under 561(A)(1) since it leads to a discovery motion. | Letter is extrajudicial and not formal discovery under 561(B). | Analyzed under 561(A)(1); not formal discovery under 561(B). |
| Whether the letter needed to be filed in the record to count as a step. | An action by a defendant can interrupt abandonment without being recorded. | Formal action rule requires record presence for a step. | Record-filing not required where the action is known to all parties and intended to hasten judgment. |
| Whether DOTD’s later discovery responses to OHH but not all parties could interrupt abandonment. | DOTD attempted to comply and respond to discovery. | Failure to serve on all parties prevents interruption. | DOTD’s late responses did not interrupt abandonment; the Court focused on the letter as the step. |
| Whether the three-year abandonment clock was tolled by the April 24, 2007 letter. | The letter constitutes a step within three-year period. | Extrajudicial letter does not toll the period. | Yes; the letter satisfied Clark’s three-factor test to interrupt abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So.2d 779 (La. 2001) (liberal construction; formal action requirement; steps may occur outside the record in certain defenses)
- Hidalgo v. Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam, 961 So.2d 434 (La.App.1 Cir. 2007) (scheduling conference as a step under Clark analysis)
- Dendy v. City National Bank, 977 So.2d 8 (La.App.1 Cir. 2007) (status discovery steps can constitute steps toward judgment)
- Brown v. Borg, 57 So.3d 378 (La.App.2 Cir. 2011) (letter demanding responses not a formal discovery step)
- Moore v. Eden Gardens Nursing Ctr., 850 So.2d 998 (La.App.2 Cir. 2003) (correspondence about discovery not always a formal discovery step)
- Olavarrieta v. St. Pierre, 902 So.2d 566 (La.App.4 Cir. 2005) (correspondence regarding discovery not formal discovery)
- Melancon v. Continental Casualty Co., 307 So.2d 308 (La.1975) (premises on record-appearance of actions; extrinsic proof of waiver debated)