Flanks v. City of New Orleans et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAYMOND FLANKS
VERSUS
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-6897
SECTION: “G”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
This litigation arises from Plaintiff Raymond Flanks’s (“Plaintiff”) wrongful conviction
for first-degree murder in 1985. Plaintiff names as Defendants the City of New Orleans; Jason
Williams, in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney; and John Dillmann, in his
individual capacity (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Plaintiff alleges the Orleans Parish District
Attorney’s Office (“OPDA”) secured his wrongful conviction in violation of his constitutional
rights by withholding material exculpatory evidence in violation of OPDA’s obligations under
Brady v. Maryland.2
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering
Testimony or Evidence Contrary to the Testimony They Gave Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6) Without Prior Notification to the Court and Counsel and an Opportunity for
Argument.3 Defendants oppose the motion.4 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in
support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion in part and
1 See Rec. Doc. 27. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Anne Kirkpatrick and John/Jane Does #1-
20.
2 Id. at 4–5. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3 Rec. Doc. 131.
4 Rec. Doc. 148.
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 6

2
denies the motion in part. Defendants should provide Plaintiff with notice of any of the evidence
or testimony they may present at trial that is inconsistent with any of the testimony given by their
designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. If Defendants are not able to determine inconsistencies before
a witness actually testifies, Plaintiff may seek to impeach that witness with prior deposition
testimony.
I. Background
On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants in this Court for
alleged violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged violations of state
law.5 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.6 This matter is set for trial on
January 12, 2026. This case is related to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful conviction in May 1985 for
the first-degree murder of Martin Carnesi.
In May 1985, a jury found Plaintiff guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Martin
Carnesi, and Plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison.7 Nearly 37 years later, on November 17,
2022, Plaintiff’s first-degree murder conviction was vacated.8 At the November 17, 2022
exoneration hearing, the “OPDA stated that ‘the State agrees that Mr. Flank’s [sic] conviction was
obtained in violation of Brady v. Maryland’ because ‘the State failed to disclose … materials [that]
are favorable, and under circumstances of the State’s case against Mr. Flank[s], material.’”9
5 Rec. Doc. 1.
6 Rec. Doc. 27.
7 Rec. Doc. 27 at 12–13.
8 Id. at 14.
9 Id.
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 6

3
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in Limine.10 On December 1,
2025, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion.11
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Plaintiff’s Arguments in Support of the Motion
Plaintiff contends that OPDA has “already attempted to alter some of its Rule 30(b)(6)
testimony.”12 Plaintiff asserts that neither OPDA nor NOPD should be permitted to circumvent its
obligations to adequately prepare Rule 30(b)(6) designees, and avoid potential sanctions, by
attempting at trial to “clean up” or alter anything to which OPDA or NOPD testified through their
designees.13 According to Plaintiff, permitting OPDA or NOPD to change its testimony at this
stage would allow trial by surprise.14 Therefore, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be
prohibited from “offering testimony or evidence contrary to the testimony they gave pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) without prior notification to the Court and counsel and
an opportunity for argument.”15
B. Defendants’ Arguments in Opposition to Motion
Defendants assert that this motion is premised on a misunderstanding of the nature and
purpose of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.16 Although the testimony of a corporate representative under
Rule 30(b)(6) is binding on the corporation, Defendants assert such testimony does not constitute
10 Rec. Doc. 131.
11 Rec. Doc. 148.
12 Rec. Doc. 131-1 at 1.
13 Id. at 4.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 5.
16 Rec. Doc. 148 at 2.
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 6

4
a judicial admission that decides an issue with finality or estops a party from contradicting the
testimony of an earlier corporate representative.17 Defendants assert that the rules do not require
them to determine, in advance, whether any of the evidence or testimony they may present at trial
is inconsistent with any of the testimony given by their designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses.18
Defendants submit that the remedy for any inconsistent testimony is impeachment through prior
deposition testimony.19
III. Law and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides that when a party notices a corporation
or governmental agency for a deposition, the corporation must “designate one or more officers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and
it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.” In the notice of deposition,
the discovering party must “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.”20
In response,”[t]he persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably
available to the organization.”21 The Fifth Circuit has explained that the purpose of Rule 30(b)(6)
is to streamline the discovery process.22
Statements by corporate designees under Rule 30(b)(6) are binding on a corporate party
because the corporation, by making the designation, “represents that the employee has authority
17 Id. (citing Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., No. 04-cv-3201, 2008 WL 6928161, at *3 (E.D. La. May 2,
2008)).
18 Id.
19 Id. at 3.
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
21 Id.
22 See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Southern Union Co., Inc., 985 F.2d 196, 197 (5th Cir. 1993).
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 6

5
to speak on behalf of the corporation.”23 “Although the testimony of a corporate representative
under Rule 30(b)(6) is binding on the corporation, such testimony does not constitute a ‘judicial
admission’ that decides an issue with finality or estops a party from contradicting the testimony of
an earlier corporate representative.”24 “Consistent with the view that Rule 30(b)(6) helps to make
a corporate party more like an individual by requiring the designation of someone who can speak
on the corporation’s behalf, a corporation is subject to the same opportunity to revise its designee’s
earlier testimony as an individual.”25 If a corporate party offers trial testimony that is inconsistent
with prior deposition testimony, the remedy is impeachment based on that prior inconsistent
statement.26 It will then be the jury’s duty to evaluate the inconsistency and make any ultimate
factual determinations.
Defendants should provide Plaintiff with notice of any of the evidence or testimony they
may present at trial that is inconsistent with any of the testimony given by their designated Rule
30(b)(6) witnesses. If Defendants are not able to determine inconsistencies before a witness
actually testifies, Plaintiff may seek to impeach that witness with prior deposition testimony. The
jury will then make any credibility determinations. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants
from Offering Testimony or Evidence Contrary to the Testimony They Gave Pursuant to Federal
23 Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 434 (5th Cir. 2006).
24 Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., No. 04-3201, 2008 WL 6928161, at *3 (E.D. La. May 2, 2008) (collecting
cases).
25 Id. at *4.
26 Id. See also Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Technology Inc., 404 F. App’x 899, at *7 (5th Cir. 2010)
(“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows corporate representatives to testify to matters within the
corporation’s knowledge during deposition, and Rule 32(a)(3) permits an adverse party to use that deposition
testimony during trial.”).
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Without Prior Notification to the Court and Counsel and an
Opportunity for Argument27 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants
should provide Plaintiff with notice of any of the evidence or testimony they may present at trial
that is inconsistent with any of the testimony given by their designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. If
Defendants are not able to determine inconsistencies before a witness actually testifies, Plaintiff
may seek to impeach that witness with prior deposition testimony.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ____ day of December, 2025.
_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27 Rec. Doc. 131.
30th
Case 2:23-cv-06897-NJB-KWR Document 187 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 6