Rashaad Picquet And Shantel Harris v. Diane Mix And Farrell Davis, Individually And As The Tutors Of The Minor Child Amico Davis, And Michael Williams, Sr. And Vanessa Q. Williams As Tutors Of The Minor Child Michel Davis, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 21, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
RASHAAD PICQUET AND SHANTEL HARRIS
VS.
DIANE MIX AND FARRELL DAVIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE TUTORS OF
THE MINOR CHILD AMICO DAVIS, AND
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, SR. AND VANESSA Q.
WILLIAMS AS TUTORS OF THE MINOR
CHILD MICHEL DAVIS, JR.
No. 2023-CC-00495
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Gamo USA, Inc. - Applicant Other; Gamo Outdoor S.L.U. - Applicant Other;
Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Orleans Civil District Court
Number(s) 2014-05548, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-C-0034;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 21, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/21/2023 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2023-CC-00495
RAS
HAAD PICQUET AND SHANTEL HARRIS
VS.
DIANE MIX AND FARRELL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE
TUTORS OF THE MINOR CHILD AMICO DAVIS, AND MICHAEL
WILLIAMS, SR. AND VANESSA Q. WILLIAMS AS TUTORS OF THE
MINOR CHILD MICHEL DAVIS, JR.
O
n Supervisory Writ to the Orleans Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
PE
R CURIAM
I
n response to a fourth supplemental and amended petition, defendant filed a
motion for leave to add a new expert, Dr. Pamela McCauley. Defendant argued this
testimony was necessary because plaintiffs’ fourth supplemental and amended
petition added new claims and new causes of action that needed to be addressed.
Initially, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for leave to add Dr. McCauley
as an expert. However, p laintiffs subsequently filed what they referred to as a
motion for new trial, in which they argued defendant already had adequate experts
to address the allegations of plaintiff s’ fourth amended petition. The trial court
granted plaintiffs’ motion and precluded Dr. McCauley from testifying in this
matter. The Court of Appeal denied writ.
The trial court’s exclusion of the expert witness i s based on claims that the
opinions of defendant’s experts are cumulative. However, no discovery has been
taken with respect to the qualifications and scope of opinions of this expert. Under
these circumstances, we find it premature for the trial court to strike th e expert’s
opinion as redundant . We reverse the trial court’s ruling, which precluded Dr.
McCauley from testifying in this matter, and we remand the matter to the trial court
06/21/23

for additional discovery to determine the expert’s qualifications and the scope of her
opinions. REVERSED AND REMANDED.