Law And Legal Expert’s Testimony on OPDA’s Practices Admitted
Posted on January 14, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler
This litigation arises from Plaintiff Raymond Flanks’ (“Plaintiff”) wrongful conviction for first-degree murder in 1985. In particular, Plaintiff alleged that the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office (“OPDA”) secured his wrongful conviction in violation of his constitutional rights by withholding material exculpatory evidence.
Laurie Levenson is a law professor who was retained by Plaintiff to testify about her evaluation of OPDA’s Brady policies, practices, and customs.
However, Defendant Jason Williams, in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney, contended that Levenson provided an untimely supplemental report on December 17, 2025, and Levenson’s testimony should be limited to her original report.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Laurie L. Levenson joined the Loyola faculty in 1989 and served as Loyola’s Associate Dean for Academic Affairs from 1996 to 1999. In addition, she has been a visiting professor at UCLA School of Law and USC Law School, and a D&L Straus distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine School of Law. Moreover, in 2019, she co-founded (with Judge Sandra Klein) Girl Scout Troop 1085, a troop for girls experiencing homelessness. At Loyola, Professor Levenson is the Founding Director of the Loyola Project for the Innocent, the Loyola Center for Ethical Advocacy, and the Fidler Institute on Criminal Justice, and Senior Faculty for Loyola’s Journalist Law School.
While in law school, Laurie Levenson was chief articles editor of the UCLA Law Review. After graduation, she served as law clerk to the Honorable James Hunter III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 1981, she joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, where she practiced as a trial and appellate lawyer and served as Assistant Chief of the Criminal Division.
Discussion by the Court
Rule 26(e)(2) permits supplementation of an expert report, but “any additions or changes to [the] information must be disclosed by the time the party’s pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.” Under Rule 26(a)(3), “when the Scheduling Order is silent, supplemental reports are generally due 30-days pretrial.” The scheduling order in this case did not provide a deadline for supplemental reports.
Review of the updated expert report of Levenson confirms that this report is a true supplement. Levenson reviewed recent deposition testimony and discusses how that testimony impacts her prior opinions.
Specifically, Levenson cited testimony supporting the opinion in her original report that OPDA’s practices and customs lead to Brady violations because OPDA: (1) failed to disclose grand jury transcripts with impeaching and exculpatory information; (2) did not have a written Brady policy; (3) had insufficient training on Brady compliance for prosecutors; (4) created a prosecutorial culture that discounted the importance of complying with Brady; and (5) failed to acknowledge its problems with Brady violations.
Analysis
All of these opinions were found in Levenson’s original expert report, and the supplemental report merely cites deposition testimony that supports these opinions. Nevertheless, even though the report is a true supplement, it is still untimely because it was disclosed 26 days before trial, four days after the deadline set in Rule 26.
Nevertheless, the Court found that the late disclosure is harmless. Since Levenson will be permitted to remain in the courtroom to observe the trial testimony and offer an opinion based on the testimony as it evolves before the jury, the Court found that the four day delay in the supplemental disclosure, which merely supplements her opinion based on recent deposition testimony, is harmless.
Held
The Court denied Williams’ motion to strike the supplemental expert report of Laurie Levenson.
Key Takeaway
In the supplemental report, Levenson merely reviewed recent deposition testimony and discusses portions of the testimony that relate to the opinions set forth in her original report. This is similar to the role an expert plays at trial.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Vocational Evaluation Expert Allowed to Opine on Lost Earning Capacity
Legal Expert Was Barred From Opining on Good Time Credits
Police Practices Expert’s Testimony on Eyewitness Identifications Admitted
Statistics Expert’s Scientific Analysis Excluded
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Flanks V. City of New Orleans |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv6897 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | January 09, 2026 |
