Barnett v. Domain Companies - Reversed and Remanded
Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case of Barnett v. The Domain Companies. The court found that the lower court erred by considering a motion for summary judgment before addressing pending discovery disputes, emphasizing the importance of allowing reasonable discovery.
What changed
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reversed and remanded the district court's judgment in Devin James Barnett v. The Domain Companies LLC et al. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment without first addressing the plaintiff's pending motion to compel discovery. The court highlighted that the plaintiff sought crucial information regarding the defendant's safety policies and procedures, which was uniquely within the defendant's control, and that the discovery dispute was unresolved at the time of the summary judgment ruling.
This decision has implications for how discovery disputes are handled in conjunction with summary judgment motions. Legal professionals should ensure that all outstanding discovery is adequately addressed before or during summary judgment proceedings. Failure to do so could lead to a reversal and remand, as seen in this case, causing delays and additional litigation costs. The concurrence specifically emphasizes the need to allow reasonable discovery when relevant information is solely within the corporate defendant's possession.
What to do next
- Review case law regarding the interplay of discovery and summary judgment motions in Louisiana.
- Ensure all pending discovery is resolved before or during summary judgment hearings.
- Document all discovery efforts and disputes thoroughly.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition [Concurrence Opinion
by Lobrano](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810013/devin-james-barnett-v-the-domain-companies-llc-domain-cos-management/#o1)
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Devin James Barnett v. the Domain Companies LLC, Domain Cos. Management LLC, Domain Companies of Louisiana, LLC, Domain South Market, LLC and Xyz Insurance Company
Louisiana Court of Appeal
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2025-CA-0609
Disposition: Reversed and Remanded Lobrano, J., Concurs With Reasons
Disposition
Reversed and Remanded Lobrano, J., Concurs With Reasons
Concurrence Opinion
by Lobrano
DEVIN JAMES BARNETT * NO. 2025-CA-0609
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL
THE DOMAIN COMPANIES * FOURTH CIRCUIT
LLC, DOMAIN COS.
MANAGEMENT LLC, * STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOMAIN COMPANIES OF
LOUISIANA, LLC, DOMAIN *
SOUTH MARKET, LLC AND
XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY *
JCL LOBRANO, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I respectfully concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the district court’s
judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings. I write separately to
emphasize the importance of allowing reasonable discovery where the relevant
information regarding a defendant’s policies and practices is uniquely within the
control of the corporate defendant.
As the majority correctly notes, Plaintiff-Appellant sought discovery
concerning the safety policies and procedures of the apartment complex, including
corporate documents and a La. C.C.P. art. 1442 deposition of the corporate
representative. A motion to compel this discovery was pending and set for hearing
on the same date as the motion for summary judgment. Despite this procedural
posture, the district court considered only the motion for summary judgment and
dismissed Appellant’s claims without addressing the outstanding discovery
dispute.
This Court has previously cautioned against resolving claims before a
plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to obtain information that is solely within the
possession of a corporate defendant. In Ripp v. Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc., 25-
0170 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/4/25), --- So.3d ----, 2025 WL 3490796, this Court
recognized that when evidence regarding a corporation’s policies and procedures is
1
controlled by the corporation itself, discovery must be permitted before the merits
of the claim are adjudicated. As we explained in that case:
At this juncture, Plaintiff need only allege facts that, if
proven, could support the existence of a duty and breach
within Louisiana’s duty/risk framework. Evidence
bearing on foreseeability, prior incidents, and Walgreens’
security decisions lies largely within the defendant’s
control. Denying discovery at this stage would
effectively insulate those facts from examination.
Id., 25-0170, p. 7, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2025 WL 3490796, *4.
This principle is particularly important in cases involving allegations that a
corporate entity failed to implement reasonable safety measures. Corporate
defendants often possess exclusive access to internal policies, training materials,
security procedures, and incident response protocols that may bear directly on
whether reasonable care was exercised. Allowing summary judgment before such
discovery occurs risks insulating those policies from judicial scrutiny.
In the case sub judice, the plaintiff specifically sought discovery concerning
security policies, prior criminal activity in the area, and the procedures governing
the complex’s pet policy that allegedly required residents to walk their pets outside
the premises. These subjects fall squarely within the type of corporate information
that may only be obtained through discovery.
Transparency in corporate practices is an essential component of
justice. Courts should not permit parties that control critical information to shield
those policies from scrutiny while simultaneously seeking dismissal of claims.
Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the district court abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment without first addressing the pending
motion to compel and without allowing the requested discovery to proceed. For
these reasons, I respectfully concur.
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Louisiana Court of Appeal publishes new changes.