United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
WASHINGTON-ST. TAMMANY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.
LOUISIANA GENERATING, L.L.C.
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Modify
Procedural Schedule (R. Doc. 38) and Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Serve Additional Discovery on Defendant (R. Doc.
39), both filed on June 12, 2018. The deadline for opposing
the latter motion has not expired. LR 7(f).
September 14, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order
setting, among other things, separate deadlines for the
completion of written discovery (March 14, 2018), the
completion of fact witness depositions (June 14, 2018), and
for the filing of all discovery motions (June 14, 2018). (R.
Doc. 12 at 1-2). The Court also set a trial date of October
21, 2019. (R. Doc. 12 at 2).
February 14, 2018, the Court granted a joint motion by the
parties to modify the discovery deadlines, and issued an
Amended Scheduling Order extending, among other things, the
deadlines for the completion of written discovery (April 13,
2018), the completion of fact witness depositions (July 13,
2018), and for the filing of all discovery motions (July 13,
2018). (R. Doc. 35).
support of their unopposed motion to extend the pre-trial
deadlines, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the deadline to
complete written discovery has expired, and seek extensions
of the remaining discovery deadlines, as well as the
dispositive and Daubert motion deadlines. (R. Doc. 38).
16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for
the modification of a scheduling order deadline upon a
showing of good cause and with the judge's consent. The
Fifth Circuit has explained that a party is required
“to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party needing the
extension.” Marathon Fin. Ins. Inc., RRG v. Ford
Motor Co., 591 F.3d 458, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting
S&W Enterprises, LLC v. Southtrust Bank of Ala.,
NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). In determining
whether the movant has established “good cause”
for an extension of deadlines, the Court considers four
factors: (1) the party's explanation for the requested
extension; (2) the importance of the requested extension; (3)
the potential prejudice in granting the extension; and (4)
the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.
See Leza v. City of Laredo, 496 Fed. App'x 375,
377 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v.
Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 110 F.3d 253, 257
(5th Cir. 1997)).
Scheduling Order informed the parties that “[j]oint,
agreed or unopposed motions to extend scheduling order
deadlines will not be granted automatically” and that
“[e]xtensions of deadlines governing discovery must be
supported with information describing the discovery already
completed, what necessary discovery remains, the parties'
efforts to complete the remaining discovery by the deadline,
and any additional information showing that the parties have
diligently pursued their discovery.” (R. Doc. 12 at 3).
do make any attempt to establish good cause for the
extensions requested in support of their unopposed motion to
extend the pre-trial deadlines in this action. The Court
finds that good cause for an extension of any deadlines has
not been established by Plaintiffs in their motion. If mere
agreement between the parties was all that was required, the
good cause standard would be meaningless.
future motion seeking an extension of discovery deadlines in
this action must provide the information required by the
Court's Scheduling Order.
their opposed motion for leave to serve additional discovery,
Plaintiffs assert that they “do not seek to reopen
discovery generally, but instead seek leave to serve the
discovery previously served on [Defendant] on March 30, 2018
and April 13, 2018.” (R. Doc. 39). In support of their
motion, Plaintiffs represent that Defendant “has not
produced a single document to the Plaintiffs” in
response to these discovery requests. (R. Doc. 39-1 at 1). In
essence, Plaintiffs are seeking an extension (or re-opening)
of the “written discovery” deadline pursuant to
Rule 16(b)(4) to allow for the timely service of these
written discovery requests. Considering the deadlines in this
action as modified below, the Court finds good cause under
Local Rule 7(f) to require Defendant to file a response to
this motion on an expedited basis.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Modify Procedural
Schedule (R. Doc. 38) is DENIED.
IS ORDERED that Defendant must file any response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Serve Additional
Discovery on Defendant (R. Doc. 39) on or before June