Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lafleur v. Leglue

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

July 13, 2018

LONDI L. LAFLEUR
v.
KARLEEN LEGLUE, ET AL.

          ORDER

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 134) filed on May 15, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 137).

         I. Background

         On April 20, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action, alleging that on January 26, 2016, she was attacked by the defendant Karleen Leglue, a deputy of the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office, while incarcerated at the Livingston Parish Detention Center (“LDPC”). (R. Doc. 1).

         On July 25, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting, among other things, the non-expert discovery deadline on May 1, 2017. (R. Doc. 22). The Court subsequently extended the non-expert discovery deadline to June 12, 2017. (R. Doc. 56).

         On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Trial and Reset Deadlines in Scheduling Order. (R. Doc. 84).

         On August 24, 2017, the Court extended the remaining expert discovery deadlines and the dispositive motion deadline on the basis that Plaintiff was continuing treatment, specifically noting that non-expert discovery was closed. (R. Doc. 95). The Court noted that the deadline to complete fact discovery had expired.

         On October 17, 2017, the Court again extended the remaining expert discovery deadlines on the basis that she had not reached maximum medical improvement. (R. Doc. 100).

         On December 13, 2017, the district judge granted Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial and Reset Deadlines in Scheduling Order (R. Doc. 84), and converted the pre-trial conference into a “status conference at which time a new trial date and deadline for the submission for proposed pretrial orders shall be established.” (R. Doc. 114).

         On February 26, 2018, the district judge held a status conference with the parties, resetting the jury trial in this action to commence on November 13, 2018. (R. Doc. 133). The district judge did not set a new deadline to complete non-expert discovery. Moreover, the district judge has clarified that the trial date was continued in light of Plaintiff's ongoing treatment. (R. Doc. 142 at 1). Furthermore, while the Order reopened discovery related to Plaintiff's ongoing medical treatment, it also states “that Plaintiff has had sufficient time to conduct discovery in this matter, a relatively straightforward excessive force case, and that reopening discovery would unduly delay proceedings.” (R. Doc. 142 at 1-2).

         On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel to obtain documents in response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 3 of her Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.[1] Plaintiff asserts that the documents she are seeking are relevant to her Monel claims and Defendants' proposed affirmative defense of failure to administratively exhaust.[2] In opposition, Defendants argue that the information sought falls outside the scope of discovery. (R. Doc. 137).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is Untimely

         All non-expert discovery in this action, with the exception of discovery pertaining to Plaintiff's ongoing treatment, closed on June 12, 2017. Accordingly, the instant motion to compel, which was filed on May 15, 2018, is untimely. See LR 26(d)(1) (“Absent exceptional circumstances, no motions relating to discovery, including motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), 29, and 37, shall be filed after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless they are filed within seven days after the discovery deadline and pertain to conduct during the final seven days of discovery.”); see also Price v. Maryland Cas. Co., 561 F.2d 609, 611 (5th Cir. 1977) (denying motion to compel filed after the close of discovery where party had been “inexcusably dilatory in his efforts”); Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237 F.R.D. 395, 396-99 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (motion to compel was untimely filed two weeks after the discovery deadline; motion should have been filed within discovery deadline); Wells v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.