Discovery in a Digital World

Andrew Blanchfield, Managing Partner at Keogh Cox, represented the Louisiana Office of State Police and a State Trooper in a recent wrongful death jury trial in the 19^th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge. In the case, Andrew Arway was fatally shot during a traffic stop in Avoyelles Parish on May 24, 2004 by a Louisiana State Trooper.

The Trooper's dash cam video established that the traffic stop was initiated at 4:30 a.m. However, Arway did not initially stop his vehicle and instead drove forward slowly for several hundred feet. Once Arway's vehicle came to a stop, he exited, placed his hands in his pockets, and began to move to the front of his truck, ignoring the Trooper’s commands. Arway then made the motion of searching for a weapon. At one point, he formed his hands as if he held a gun and yelled “freeze.” In response, the Trooper loudly commanded Arway to place his hands where they could be seen. Arway again ignored the Trooper's commands and moved towards a ditch, outside of camera view.

The Trooper testified that Arway continued to make gestures as if he was looking for a weapon around his ankle. According to the Trooper, he fired two shots when he lost sight of Arway’s hands. No weapon was found on Arway and his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit.

Arway’s wife and children brought a wrongful death action alleging excessive force. At trial, Blanchfield argued that the Trooper’s force was reasonable and that the Trooper justifiably feared for his life in view of Arway’s bizarre and threatening behavior. Evidence was also presented that Arway’s behavior was consistent with a “suicide by cop” theory.

The Baton Rouge jury deliberated for 90 minutes and concluded that the Trooper’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.

Andrew "Drew" Blanchfield is a litigator with over 30 years of courtroom experience. Litigating dozens of complex jury trials in state and federal courts, Drew has offered representation to various sectors to include industrial accidents, business litigation, oil and gas, healthcare, and professional liability defense. When he is not advising his corporate clients or in a court room (or on the tennis court), Drew spends time with his wife and four children.

On June 27, 2025, in an Opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the United States Supreme Court determined that “universal injunctions,” injunctions issued by district judges that apply nationwide, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 vote, concluded that district courts do not have authority to issue universal injunctions which seek to prohibit the enforcement of a law or policy against anyone nationwide. The decision limits the relief afforded by the district courts in consolidated matters to only the parties in those actions.

By prohibiting the use of “universal injunctions” in federal courts, litigants already have started to utilize another procedure to seek the relief they seek – class actions. Class actions are a special procedure provided by both federal and state law that allows one or more class representatives to file suit and seek to represent the interests of other similarly situated individuals or companies. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a single litigant could apply for a universal injunction through an individual action. Now that the Supreme Court has declared that process unavailable for application of an injunction nationwide, class actions may be the procedural process litigants attempt to use to achieve that same purpose. It remains to be seen whether class actions will be an effective way to achieve broader relief for individuals impacted by government policies.

References:

Trump v. CASA, Inc., --- S.Ct. ---, No. 24A884, 2025 WL 1773631 (U.S. June 27, 2025).

Louisiana law favors the settlement of disputes. With a settlement, both sides agree to avoid costly litigation and obtain a certain, negotiated result. While neither side is completely happy with the result in a typical settlement, the case is at least closed and the financial and emotional drain of litigation is ended. But the recent decision in The Marietta Trust and The Warren Trust v. J.R. Logging, Inc., Fair Hills Farm, LLC, Jerry Avants, Jr., Thomas Keaty, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company, 2016 CA 1136 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/11/17) shows what can happen when one of the parties change their mind. This case is important because it calls into question whether an exchange of emails is sufficient to reach a final settlement.

The Marietta Trust case involved a dispute regarding the wrongful cutting of timber and the parties seemingly came to a resolution. Via email, the case was negotiated and the terms were agreed upon. Formal settlement documents were drawn up and money was exchanged. However, when the time came to execute the final documents, one set of defendants refused to sign the paperwork. This refusal to sign came after the attorney for these defendants directly stated in an email that his "clients have agreed to the settlement." Id. at *4. In response to the refusal to sign, the other parties filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement which was denied by the Trial Court.

Settlement agreements are governed by the Louisiana Civil Code art. 3071 which provides that litigation can be resolved via settlement or compromise. A settlement agreement can take two forms: 1) recitation in open court; or 2) a writing. “The purpose of the writing requirement is to serve as proof of the agreement and the acquiescence therein.” Marietta Trust, 2016 CA 11336, Id. at *3. The writing must be signed by the parties or their agents. “Until the parties sign a written document or documents evincing their consent to the terms of the proposed agreement, a party is free to change his or her mind.” Id. at *3. Prior courts have found that emails meet the "writing" requirements. See, Geer v. BP America Production Co., 2014-450 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14), 150 So. 3d 621; Dozier v. Rhodus, 2008-1813 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/09), 17 So. 3d 402.

The appellate court in Marietta Trust refused to enforce the "settlement." The court found that the exchange of emails was insufficient to meet the "writing" requirement of Civil Code article 3071 because neither the emails nor any other evidence showed that the attorney possessed "the express consent necessary to accept the terms of the settlement." Id. at *3.

When is a settlement not a settlement? Maybe when it came to you through your inbox. So, if an email from the attorney is not sufficient to perfect a settlement, what can we do? The answer offered by the 1st Circuit is to either: 1. Recite in open court; or 2. Obtain a writing that includes the client’s express consent given to the attorney to settle the case (presumably for the amount in the writing).