A court is weighing whether accident reports and firing records must be shared in discovery.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VICTORIA HAMILTON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 2:25-cv-1156 MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC., and SECTION: “H” (4) LANDON RONNIE FOSTER ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 46) filed by the Plaintiff seeking to compel the Defendants to respond fully and adequately to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, particularly production of MasTec’s Incident Report and Mr. Foster’s Termination Records, pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further requests that Defendants be cast with reasonable expenses associated with the bringing of this Motion including attorneys’ fees. The motion is opposed. R. Doc. 49. The motion was heard by oral argument on August 19, 2026. I. Background A) Factual Background This case arises from a lane change motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 12, 2024, on US Highway 90 at the Tchoupitoulas Street exit in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiff Victoria Hamilton (“Hamilton”) was driving a 1998 Toyota Camry in the right lane of Highway 90B. At the same time, Defendant commercial driver, Landon Ronnie Foster (“Foster”), was operating a commercial truck/big rig for his employer, MasTec North America, Inc. (“MasTec”), in the middle lane of Highway 90B. Plaintiff alleges negligence against both Foster and MasTec. First, Hamilton alleges that Foster negligently moved his commercial big rig from the middle lane into the right lane that was already occupied by Hamilton, crashing the big rig into Hamilton’s small Camry. Hamilton further alleges that the big rig’s violent impact caused her Camry to spin multiple times, throwing open her driver’s-side door, substantially damaging the car, and seriously injuring her. Second, Hamilton alleges that MasTec is vicariously liable for Foster’s negligence because at the time of the crash, Foster was acting in the course and scope of his employment with MasTec while operating MasTec’s commercial big rig. Third, Hamilton alleges that MasTec was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of Foster. Foster was terminated from his employment with MasTec within days after the accident. MasTec claims, and Foster has testified in his deposition, that Foster’s employment was terminated for repetitive tardiness—not at all due to the accident that is the subject matter of this suit. Hamilton filed suit in April of 2025 in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. On June 6, 2025, this case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction. B) Subject Motion to Compel Along with her Petition, Plaintiff propounded initial discovery upon the Defendants. R. Doc. 46-1. Relevant to the instant motion are Requests for Production Nos. 2, 12, 15, and 16, which Plaintiff contends contemplates production of MasTec’s incident report and Foster’s termination records.1 1 Request for Production No. 2 seeks production of all materials which may be introduced by Defendants as evidence at trial. Request for Production No. 12 seeks all documents in MasTec’s possession related to Defendant Foster in his capacity as an employee of MasTec, including files on his employment, personnel, risk management, safety, training, and any documents related to Plaintiff’s accident. Request for Production No. 15 seeks any records of MasTec’s investigation into the accident, including whether the crash was preventable by Foster. Request for Production No. 16 seeks all documents created by MasTec’s incident review board concerning “chargeability of the incident.” On January 6, 2026, Defendants responded to discovery. R. Doc. 46-2. Defendants produced Foster’s driver’s license, portions of Foster’s personnel file, training records, and general training materials, but objected to production of anything further as overbroad and irrelevant to the instant litigation. Id. at 15, 17, 18-19. Defendants objected to production of any materials related to MasTec’s internal investigation into the accident by claiming attorney-client privilege and protection under the work-product doctrine. Id. at 20. Defendants also objected to production of any materials concerning “chargeability of the incident” as vague, overbroad, irrelevant, duplicative, and privileged. Id. Defendants produced a Privilege Log. R. Doc. 46-4. The privilege log noted Defendants’ objection to production of Foster’s termination records on relevance grounds. The privilege log noted Defendants’ objection to production of MasTec’s incident report based on “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product, prepared in anticipation of litigation.” On February 26, 2026, the Defendants supplemented their discovery responses. R. Doc. 46-3. Defendants produced portions of Foster’s driver’s file, but no termination records or incident report. Id. Defendants produced an Amended Privilege Log which did not change their claims for privilege over the termination records or incident report. Plaintiff believes that the Defendants’ responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 12, 15, and 16 are insufficient because they contain boilerplate objections and privilege claims. Plaintiff believes that the Defendants’ responses should have included production of two documents: MasTec’s internal Accident Review Report (“incident report”) and Mr. Foster’s termination records. The Defendants maintained consistent objections that the disputed Requests seek irrelevant and privileged information—specifically, that the incident report is protected by the work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege, and that Foster’s termination records are irrelevant to this suit. The parties conducted a Rule 37 Conference on February 9, 2026, to resolve the dispute, but were unsuccessful. R. Doc. 46-5. On July 31, 2026, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. R. Doc. 46. Plaintiff contends that Requests for Production Nos. 2, 12, 15, and 16 include production of MasTec’s incident report and Foster’s termination records, and that the Defendants are improperly withholding these relevant and discoverable documents based on insufficient boilerplate objections. Plaintiff argues that MasTec’s incident report is not protected by either the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege because MasTec creates incident reports within the ordinary course of its business, as established by MasTec’s training, policy, and procedure materials. R. Doc. 46-7. Further, Plaintiff argues that because Foster’s negligence is directly at issue in this case, which necessarily includes the underlying facts and circumstances of the accident, information within the incident report and relative to Foster’s employment are relevant to the subject matter of this dispute and are therefore discoverable. On August 11, 2026, Defendants both opposed the motion. R. Doc. 49. Defendants counter that none of the disputed Requests for Production explicitly seek MasTec’s “Accident Review Report”, inciden

Official opinion source