Jordan Bryant v. State Of Louisiana, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 10, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
JORDAN BRYANT
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
No. 2023-CC-00731
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Thaddeus Green - Applicant Other; Andrea Ford - Applicant Other; State of
Louisiana Department of Health & Hospital o/b/o Pinecrest Supports and Services
Center - Applicant Other; Office for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities -
Applicant Other; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial
District Court Number(s) 259,927, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) CW
22-00764;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 10, 2023
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., would deny the writ in its entirety.
Genovese, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., would deny the writ in its entirety.
JLW
SJC
WJC
JBM
10/10/2023 "See News Release 043 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-CC-00731
JORDAN BRYANT
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
On Supervisory Writ to the 9th Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides
PER CURIAM
Defendants seek review of the district court’s ruling excluding their expert
witnesses and denying their motion for summary judgment. Defendants ask this
court to reverse the ruling on the motion in limine and review the motion for
summary judgment de nov o or remand the case for a new summary judgment
hearing.
Without reaching the merits, we conclude the district court committed legal
error in excluding defendants’ experts without complying with the mandatory
requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425(F) a nd without properly applying the
factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), as adopted by this court in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993). In the
absence of any analysis of the Daubert factors or any ev idence indicating that the
methodology used by defendants’ experts was unreliable, the district court abused
its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude this testimony. 1
Accordingly, the judgment granting the motion in limine is reversed.
1 We recognize the district court expressed concern over the accuracy of the facts used by
defendants’ experts in formulating their conclusions. However, it is well-settled that the character
of the evidence upon which an expert bases his opinion affects o nly the weight to be afforded to
the expert’s conclusion and does not make his opinion evidence inadmissible under Daubert. See
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Person, 2012-0307 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d
293, 298; MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 2004-0988 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05), 934 So.2d 708, 720,
writ denied, 2006-1669 (La. 10/6/06), 938 So. 2d 78; see also Everett v. Air Prod. & Chemicals
Inc., 20 19-01975 (La. 5/26/20), 296 So. 3d 1011 (“[t]o the extent there are disputes over the
accuracy of the facts relied upon by Dr. Holstein, the court may find such a challenge goes to the
weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.”).
10/10/23

2

Having reversed the district court’s judgment on the motion in limine, we find
it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s judgment on defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted in par t. The judgment of the
district court granting plaintiff’s motion in limine is reversed. The judgment of the
district court denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment is vacated. In all
other respects, the application is denied.