Neyland et al v. Hutson et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD NEYLAND, ET AL.
VERSUS
SHERIFF SUSAN HUTSON, ET AL.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-1773
SECTION “B” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before me is the Motion for Sanctions and Contempt filed by Plaintiffs Richard
Neyland and Cole Neyland against Defendant Sheriff Susan Hutson. 	ECF No. 92. 	Defendant
Hutson filed an Opposition Memorandum. 	ECF No. 94. 	No party requested oral argument in
accordance with Local Rule 78.1, and the court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the
reasons stated herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed suit against various defendants seeking damage relating to the death of Chad
Neyland after a fall from the second story mezzanine while in custody of the Orleans Parish
Sheriff’s Office at the Orleans Parish Justice Center. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed two motions to
compel after Defendant Hutson failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production
served on August 15, 2024, and August 30, 2024. ECF Nos. 77, 78. On November 6, 2024, this
Court granted in part the motions and ordered Defendant Hutson to provide written responses to
both sets of discovery requests and to produce responsive documents or state specific objections
to same within 14 days. 	ECF No. 84. 	Nine days after this Order, on November 15, 2024,
Case 2:23-cv-01773-ILRL-DPC Document 96 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendant Wellpath, LLC filed a notice of bankruptcy, after which Judge Lemelle stayed the case.
ECF Nos. 85, 86. A year later, on October 28, 2025, Defendant Wellpath notified the Court that
the bankruptcy stay had been lifted, and Judge Lemelle lifted the stay in this case on November 6,
2025. ECF Nos. 87, 88.
Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Sanctions and Contempt against Sheriff Hutson seeking
sanctions and a contempt finding for Defendant Hutson’s failure to provide written responses to
discovery and produce documents or state objections to same within 14 days of the November 6,
2024. ECF No. 92-1 at 5-6. Sheriff Hutson opposes the motion, asserting that, after the stay was
lifted, she provided written responses to discovery and produced 64 pages of documents on
Decembre 15, 2025, and she notified Plaintiffs that the IT Department was restoring shared drives
and files that contain additional information, and those document will be provided as soon as
access is restored. ECF No. 94 at 1-2. Sheriff Hutson asks that her responses and steps taken to
restore documents that were not readily available demonstrate her good faith efforts to comply.
Id. at 2.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the parties to
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ 	resources, 	the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
FED. R. C IV. P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible into evidence to be discoverable. Id.
Rather, the information merely needs to be proportional and relevant to any claim or defense. Id.
A party served with written discovery must fully answer each request to the full extent that
Case 2:23-cv-01773-ILRL-DPC Document 96 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
it is not objectionable and affirmatively explain what portion of an interrogatory or document
request is objectionable and why, affirmatively explain what portion of the interrogatory or
document request is not objectionable and the subject of the answer or response, and affirmatively
explain whether any responsive information or documents have been withheld.1 Likewise, a party
must provide full and complete written responses to requests for production within thirty days after
being served same unless otherwise stipulated or ordered. F ED. R. C IV. P. 34(b)(2)(A). For each
request, the respondent must state with specificity the grounds for objection, including the reason,
and either produce the documents or specify a date certain by which the documents will be
produced. 	Id. at 34(b)(2)(B).2 When the production must occur in stages, the response should
specify the beginning and end dates of the production.3
This matter is not as straightforward as Plaintiffs suggest. Although my Order compelled
responses by November 20, 2024, before expiration of that deadline, Defendant Wellpath filed a
Notice of Bankruptcy which led to Judge Lemelle issuing a stay of this case. After the stay was
lifted on November 6, 2025, by email dated November 19, 2025, Plaintiffs requested their
outstanding responses. ECF No. 92-7 at 3. On December 3, 2025, Defendant Hutson indicated
responses would be delivered by December 21, 2025, but Plaintiffs objected and demanded
responses by December 12, 2025. ECF No. 92-8 at 1. On December 15, 2025, Defendant Hutson
appeared to have delivered written responses to the First Set of Requests for Production along with
medical records and indicated responses to the second set would be forthcoming. Id. at 2.
1 Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 580 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citation omitted).
2 A party has “control” over documents or materials that it has the legal right to obtain even though it has no copy and
even if the documents are owned or possessed by a nonparty. Becnel v. Salas, No. 17-17965, 2018 WL 691649, at *3
(E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2018) (citations omitted); Est. of Monroe v. Bottle Rock Power Corp., No. 03-2682, 2004 WL
737463, at *10 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2004) (citation omitted).
3 FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B) advisory committee notes to 2015 amendments.
Case 2:23-cv-01773-ILRL-DPC Document 96 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The record does not reflect that Defendant Hutson has responded to Plaintiff’s second set
of production. Although Defendant’s Opposition indicates that its IT Department is still restoring
shared drives that may contain information, it provides no timeline of when documents will be
produced.
In light of the timing of my Order in relation to the notice of bankruptcy and subsequent
stay of this matter, sanctions and a contempt finding are not appropriate in this case. Plaintiffs are,
however, entitled to written responses to the outstanding Second Set of Requests for Production
as well as a date certain, within a reasonable time, within which the responsive documents will be
produced.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions and Contempt be characterized as a Motion
to Compel and is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. No sanctions or contempt will
be ordered, but Defendant Sheriff Susan Hutson is ORDERED to deliver written responses to the
Second Set of Requests for Production within 14 days and to either include all responsive
documents with the written responses or provide a date certain, within a reasonable time, by which
responsive documents will be produced, as required by Rule 34. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of January, 2026.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21st
Case 2:23-cv-01773-ILRL-DPC Document 96 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 4