Discovery in a Digital World

In a decision released October 9, 2013, the U.S. Fifth Circuit upheld the grant of the defendants' Motion to Dismiss by concluding that the Federal Power Act ("FPA") preempts property damage claims based in Louisiana state tort law where the alleged damage is the result of operations that comply with the FERC-issued license. Simmons v. Sabine River Authority, No. 12-30494, - F.3d - , (5th Cir. 10/09/2013).

This issue, recognized as a question of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, arose in a case where the plaintiffs, all Louisiana owners and residents of property located downstream from the federally-licensed hydroelectric Toledo Bend Dam situated on the Sabine River, sued Sabine River Authority of Louisiana and various Entergy defendants to recover damages for flooding incidents and to enjoin the opening of the Dam's flood gates in such a way as to cause inundation of the downstream properties.

On behalf of defendants, Keogh Cox moved to dismiss the suit by claiming state tort law claims for damages and injunctive relief interferes with the exclusive authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ["FERC"] to regulate and control the operations of the federally-licensed Toledo Bend project such that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted under the FPA. The District Court granted the motion after extensive briefing and argument by Keogh Cox attorneys, John P. Wolff, III, Nancy B. Gilbert, Martin E. Golden, and Virginia J. McLin.

In affirming the district court's ruling, the Fifth Circuit recognized U.S. Supreme Court precedent that has interpreted the FPA as "occupying the field of public water use and power generation except for water use rights." As a result, in accord with Ninth Circuit law, it interpreted the general savings clause in the FPA [16 U.S.C. § 821] narrowly to exempt only "a state property law regime [that] enables users of streams and wells to obtain proprietary rights in a continuing quantity of water." The Court also recognized that state damage claims can have the same effect as a state regulation and may serve as a collateral attack on a federal license, such that it refused to interpret the limited savings clause [16 U.S.C. § 803(c)] to permit "state tort law to supplant FERC's exclusive control of dam operations." Because "applying state tort law to set the duty of care for the operation of the FERC-licensed project would 'stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives' of the FPA," the Fifth Circuit held plaintiffs' state law property damages claims were conflict preempted under the FPA.

That a single federal agency should control public water use and dam operations was noted to be especially appropriate because the Toledo Bend Dam spans Texas and Louisiana state lines and, if not preempted, different causes of action and standards of conduct could have been imposed under the laws of the two states.

Webster's top two definitions of the word "drone" are as follows:

1: A stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen.

2: one that lives on the labors of others: parasite

While bees and parasites have their allure, Webster's third definition of the word "drone" is the one with current intrigue.

According to Webster's, a drone is also "an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers." Drones began as play things; but are now poised to revolutionize industry, retail, agriculture, journalism, art, and law at an ever-increasing pace.

Currently, drones are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration which has for decades regulated flight by planes and helicopters; but not everyone can own an airplane or helicopter. Everyone can own a drone and many soon will.

The soon-to-be pervasive use of drones will stretch at the fabric of criminal and civil law and raises intriguing questions with hazy answers. For example,

1: Without probable case, can the government park a drone over a house or building, or even a crime-ridden city block, and monitor for criminal activity with sensors that easily peer through walls?

2: Does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a fenced-in back yard?

3: Is following a personal injury plaintiff via drone considered stalking?

4: Can a business fly a drone over a competitor's work yard to observe it processes without recourse?

5: Is it legal to use technology (which is now available) to disrupt or even crash drones flying overhead? Would that be a tort?

In an upcoming Keogh Cox blog, we will advise of pending changes to the law that may begin to answer some of these questions. For now, we will observe that the word "drone" is no longer a boring word.

They make movies about “class actions” exactly because they can involve high stakes, with millions, even billions of dollars on the line. The class action procedure can create exposure at this level because of the large numbers of potential claims involved. Class actions are used to address losses experienced from unfair or fraudulent business practices, natural disasters, industrial explosions, or any event or action which is alleged to have damaged a large group in a similar way.

As a procedural device, the class action combines several claims (often hundreds or thousands) into a single action. A key battle in most Louisiana class actions is whether the proposed claim can properly be “certified” as a class action under Louisiana procedure. The recent Fourth Circuit decision in Duhon v. Harbor Homeowners’ Ass’n., Inc., 2016 WL 3551620 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/30/16) addressed whether the lower court’s class “certification” was proper under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591.

Duhon involved damages experienced following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In particular, the class representatives sought damages against the Harbor View Condominium Association and its insurers claiming that the association was guilty of faulty repairs following these two hurricanes. In deciding whether certification was proper, the Duhon court considered the following elements, all of which must be present to certify a proper class action:

Numerosity- the class must be so numerous that joinder of all involved persons would prove impractical;

Commonality- the case must present questions of law and fact that are common to the class;

Typicality- the claims and defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and,

Adequacy of representation- the representative parties must be positioned to fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.

After analyzing each of these “elements,” the Duhon court upheld the Trial Court’s certification of the claim as a class action. Further, the court concluded that the questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominated over any questions affecting only individual members such that a class action was superior to other available methods to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy.

While the class action procedure has its detractors, it is sometimes the only real option to address a harm to a large group. Now that the class in Duhon has been certified, the case will proceed through discovery and towards trial on the merits. Who knows, they may make a movie about it someday.