The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEBORAH A. GAUDET, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 19-10356-WBV-JVM
HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)
ORDER and REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motions [Docs. 334,
336, 337, 338 and 339].1 Howard L. Nations, APC, Howard L. Nations, Cindy L.
Nations, Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC, and the Rueb Law Firm, APLC
(collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the Motion to Strike.2
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Non-Evidentiary
Pretrial Motion Deadline (“Motion for Extension”).3 Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.4
After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Extension is
DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the interest of judicial economy, and because the factual background of this
case was extensively detailed in the Court’s October 16, 2020 Order and Reasons,5
1 R. Doc. 342.
2 R. Doc. 351.
3 R. Doc. 344.
4 R. Doc. 345.
5 R. Doc. 234.
the Court will limit its recitation of the factual and procedural background to matters
relevant to the instant Motion.
On November 2, 2020, the Court held a telephone status conference during
which the Court granted an unopposed, oral motion by Plaintiffs’ counsel to continue
the trial and pretrial conference dates, and stated that an amended scheduling order
would issue containing the new pretrial deadlines.6 Later that day, the Court issued
an Amended Scheduling Order with new pretrial deadlines,7 which was the fourth
Scheduling Order issued in this case.8 The Amended Scheduling Order set a May 17,
2021 deadline for the parties to file all non-evidentiary pretrial motions, including
motions for summary judgment and motions in limine regarding the admissibility of
expert testimony.
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend Deadlines, seeking an
additional 14 days, or until May 31, 2021, to file all non-evidentiary pretrial motions,
and requested expedited consideration thereof.9 The Court granted the request for
expedited consideration on May 13, 2021, and set the matter for a telephone status
conference that same day.10 Defendants filed an Opposition brief before the
conference, asserting that the May 17, 2021 pretrial motion deadline “is still
workable,” that the deadline “can be met on both sides,” and that the extension “would
through [sic] off course pre-trial deadlines and the trial date.”11 Defendants urged
6 R. Doc. 237.
7 R. Doc. 238.
8 See, R. Docs. 64, 163, 229.
9 R. Docs. 316, 317.
10 R. Docs. 317, 319.
11 R. Doc. 320 at p. 3.
the Court that, “for the good of all the parties, the May 17 deadline should remain
unchanged.”12 Defendants further asserted that, “the extension requested by the
Plaintiffs is unreasonably long and such an extension would further threaten to
destroy the pre-trial schedule currently established for the July trial.”13
During the May 13, 2021 telephone status conference, counsel for Defendants
maintained their objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion, arguing that Defendants had
adhered to prior deadlines in the Scheduling Order and that further extensions of
deadlines, even though Plaintiffs were only requesting a two-week extension, would
impede the trial date. Notably, no other defendant voiced an objection to Plaintiffs’
Motion. Upon inquiry from the Court, counsel for Defendants confirmed that
Plaintiffs did not object to a prior extension of the expert report deadline requested
by Defendants. The Court also pressed counsel for Defendants about how they would
be prejudiced by the extension. Counsel failed to articulate any prejudice. The Court
reminded counsel for Defendants that if they were prepared to file their pretrial
motions, they could file them immediately without waiting for any deadline or
extension of the deadline. Finding good cause existing to amend the Scheduling
Order, the Court then issued an oral Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion, and extending
the pretrial motion deadline until May 31, 2021.14 In doing so, the Court reminded
counsel of their professional obligations toward each other and the Court, and
admonished counsel about not extending professional courtesies to each other.15 The
12 Id.
13 Id. at p. 4.
14 R. Doc. 322.
15 Id. at p. 2.
Court also mentioned that it was troubled to hear an objection from Defendants when
they could not articulate any prejudice or hardship caused by the requested
continuance. The Court noted that the only inconvenience caused by the continuance
is that the Court will have less time to decide the parties’ pretrial motions before trial.
Pursuant to the Court’s oral ruling, defendants, Joseph A. Motta and Joseph
A. Motta, Attorney at Law, APLC, filed a pretrial motion on May 28, 2021,16 and
Plaintiffs filed four pretrial motions on June 1, 2021.17 Defendants, however, filed
four pretrial motions on June 1, 2021,18 and filed a fifth motion on June 2, 2021.19
Defendants also filed a document entitled, “Notice of Technical Difficulties,” stating
that Defendants were unable to file the fifth motion on June 1, 2021 “due to technical
difficulties with the CM/ECF filing system.”20
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Strike on June 2, 2021, asking the Court
to strike as untimely the five pretrial motions filed by Defendants because they fail
to comply with the Court’s May 31, 2021 deadline for filing pretrial motions.21
Plaintiffs point out that Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ prior request to continue the
deadline until May 31, 2021, that all counsel were aware that May 31, 2021 was a
legal holiday when the continuance was granted, and that Defendants’ “Notice of
Technical Difficulties” contains “a unilateral claim by defense counsel that has not
16 R. Doc. 328.
17 R. Docs. 329, 330, 331, 332.
18 R. Docs. 334, 336, 337, 338. The Court notes that R. Docs. 336 and 337 were marked as deficient by
the Clerk’s Office, but were timely refiled as R. Docs. 358 and 359, respectively.
19 R. Doc. 339.
20 R. Doc. 340.
21 R. Doc. 342.
been corroborated by the Clerk of Court’s Office.”22 Plaintiffs further point out that
the Notice states that defense counsel did not commence filing efforts until 10:30 p.m.
on June 1, 2021. Plaintiffs assert that defense counsel should not be rewarded for
waiting until the last minute to file a motion that was already past the deadline
established by the Court.23 Plaintiffs assert that there is no indication that there was
any “technical failure of the Court’s ECF system,” and that even if there was, the
motion would still be untimely. As such, Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the five
motions as untimely.
Defendants oppose the Motion, asserting that the four motions filed on June 1,
2021 were timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), and that an extension for excusable
neglect is warranted for the fifth motion that was filed on June 2, 2021.24 Defendants
claim that their counsel did not initially realize that May 31, 2021 was a legal holiday
(Memorial Day), and that when she did, she spoke to Plaintiffs’ counsel on the phone
“about filing a one-day extension of time of the deadline, stating that the Motion
deadline had been postponed for a significant period of time, fell on Memorial Day,
and therefore would ruin Memorial Day plans for staff working on the filings.”25 After
receiving no response from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the extension, counsel for
Defendants claim that she “read Rule 6 to confirm that Memorial Day was a federal
holiday listed in Rule 6 and asked Nations’ co-counsel Christopher Corkern to figure
out whether the courthouse was accessible on the deadline,” and that the response
22 R. Doc. 342-1 at p. 2.
23 Id.
24 R. Doc. 351.
25 Id. at p. 2.
was that the courthouse was not accessible.26 Defendants assert that, “Nations’
counsel messaged back and forth with co-counsel within Deutsch Kerrigan Duris
Holmes about filing the motions on June 1,” and that, “The decision was made that
the motions would be filed on June 1 based on the legal holiday and the inaccessibility
of the courthouse.”27 Defendants assert that all but one of their pretrial motions was
filed on June 1, 2021, and that “technical difficulties” prevented their counsel from
filing the fifth motion on June 1, 2021. Defendants also claim that their fifth motion
“was filed approximately 1½ hours after midnight on June 1,” and that Defendants
have filed a contemporaneous motion for an extension of the deadline.28
Defendants argue that their motions filed on June 1, 2021 are timely under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), which they contend applies to fixed date deadlines.29 Defendants
recognize that Rule 6 was amended in 2009 and that an advisory committee note
“attempted to cast doubt on the continued availability of Rule 6(a) for fixed-date
deadlines.”30 Alternatively, if the Court finds that the motions are untimely,
Defendants request a one-day extension of the deadline.31 Defendants assert that
good cause exists to grant an extension of the pretrial motion deadline because: (1) a
one-day delay will not prejudice Plaintiffs; (2) the one-day delay will not impact the
proceeding; (3) the reason for the delay was an interpretation of Rule 6(a) that
Defendants contend has been found to be “entirely understandable;” and (4)
26 Id. at p. 3 (citing authority).
27 R. Doc. 351 at p. 3.
28 Id.
29 Id. at pp. 4-8.
30 Id. at pp. 8-9.
31 Id. at p. 9.
Defendants have acted in good faith based on their interpretation of Rule 6(a).32 As
such, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike should be denied.
On June 2, 2021, Defendants also filed the instant Motion for Extension,
seeking an extension of the pretrial motion deadline “by 1½ hours or until June
02, 2021 at 1:24 AM” to render their motion filed on June 2, 2021 timely.33 Operating
under the assumption that the pretrial motion deadline was June 1, 2021 under Rule
6(a), Defendants assert that the June 1st deadline could not be met with respect to
their fifth pretrial motion due to “unforeseen and uncontrollable technical issues,”
and that the extension will not delay this matter because “Plaintiffs have already
received a 14-day extension of the pretrial motion deadline.”34 Defendants contend
that because the last day for filing pretrial motions was a legal holiday (Memorial
Day), the time period continued to run until the end of the next day, which was June
1, 2021.35 Defendants claim that at approximately 10:30 p.m. on June 1, 2021, they
attempted to file their fifth pretrial motion on the Court’s e-filing system, but
experienced “some sort of technical difficulty” and were unable to file the motion until
approximately 1:24 a.m. on June 2, 2021.36 Defendants assert that a 1.5 hour
extension of time is warranted as to their fifth pretrial motion because the request is
32 Id. at pp. 9-11.
33 R. Doc. 344 at p. 1. See, R. Doc. 339. The Court notes that Defendants erroneously refer to the
pretrial motion deadline as July 1, 2021 in both their Motion and Memorandum in Support. See, R.
Doc. 344 at p. 1; R. Doc. 344 at p. 4.
34 R. Doc. 344 at pp. 1-2.
35 R. Doc. 344-1 at p. 2.
36 Id. at p. 3.
“more than reasonable,” it is not sought to delay this case, but “for justice to be done,”
and Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the extension.37
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ Motion for Extension, and refer the Court to the
arguments raised in their Motion to Strike.38 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’
Motion should be denied because Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s May
31, 2021 deadline, and Defendants should not be allowed to disregard deadlines,
especially deadlines imposed by the Court and agreed upon by all counsel.39
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes federal courts to control and
expedite the discovery process through a scheduling order.40 Consistent with this
authority, the Court has “broad discretion” to enforce its scheduling order.41 “Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows a court to exclude expert testimony or strike
pleadings if a party fails to comply with deadlines imposed by a scheduling order.42
Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause
and with the judge’s consent.”43 According to the Fifth Circuit, “The good cause
standard requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot
37 R. Doc. 344-1 at p. 5.
38 R. Doc. 345 at p. 1.
39 Id.
40 Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16).
41 In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328, 2014 WL 3353232, at
*1 (E.D. La. July 9, 2014) (Vance, J.) (citing Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir.
1990)); See, Huffman v. Turner Indus. Grp., LLC, Civ. A. No. 12-1061, 2013 WL 2285124, at *5 (E.D.
La. May 22, 2013) (Brown, J.) (citing Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 547 (5th Cir.
2003)).
42 Matter of Honey Island Adventure, LLC, Civ. A. No. 16-6940 c/w 16-10728 c/w 17-2652 c/w 17-2896,
2017 WL 6559871, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 22, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A)).
43 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”44 In
determining whether the movant has met its burden of proving “good cause” under
Rule 16(b)(4), this Court considers the following four factors: (1) the movant’s
explanation for failing to meet the deadline; (2) the importance of the requested relief;
(3) the potential prejudice in granting the relief sought; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.45
III. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants’ five pretrial motions are
untimely.
Pursuant to the Court’s May 13, 2021 Telephone Status Conference Report and
Order, the deadline to file all non-evidentiary pretrial motions, including motions for
summary judgment and motions in limine, was May 31, 2021.46 Defendants did not
request, nor obtain, an extension of time in which to file their pretrial motions.
Instead, Defendants filed four pretrial motions on June 1, 2021, and filed a fifth
motion on June 2, 2021. Defendants assert that the four motions filed on June 1st are
timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), and that the motion filed on June 2nd should be
deemed timely for excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). Alternatively, Defendants
assert that good cause exists to grant a one-day extension of the pretrial motion
deadline, until June 2, 2021..
44 S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)
(quoting 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 (2d ed. 1990)).
45 Cartier v. Egana of Switzerland (America Corp.), Civ. A. No. 3:08-CV-0001-D, 2009 WL 614820, at
*3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2009) (citing S&W Enterprises, L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 536).
46 R. Doc. 322.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) specifies the method for computing time
when a deadline is stated in terms of hours, days, or a longer unit of time.47 Rule
6(a)(1)(C) provides that if the last day of the time period falls on “a Saturday, Sunday,
or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not
a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”48 Rule 6(a)(3) also provides that, unless the
court orders otherwise, if the clerk’s office is inaccessible on the last day for filing
under Rule 6(a)(1), “the time for filing is extended to the first accessible day that is
not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”49 Rule 6(b) allows a court to extend the
deadline for good cause upon motion made after the time period has expired if the
movant failed to act because of excusable neglect.50 As Defendants point out, May
31, 2021 was a federal holiday (Memorial Day). Defendants argue that the four
motions filed on June 1, 2021 were timely under Rule 6(a)(1)(C) and Rule 6(a)(3)
because they were filed on the first day after a legal holiday, and because the Clerk
of Court’s office was inaccessible on May 31, 2021. The Court disagrees.
Commentary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 provides that Rule 6(a) does not apply when
the Court sets a date certain. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 2009 Amendment
to Rule 6 provide that, “The time-computation provisions of subdivision (a) apply only
when a time period must be computed. They do not apply when a fixed time to act is
set.”51 The Advisory Committee Notes further provide that, “If, for example, the date
47 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).
48 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
49 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A).
50 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
51 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), Advisory Committee Notes to the 2009 Amendment.
for filing is ‘no later than November 1, 2007,’ subdivision (a) does not govern. But if
a filing is required to be made ‘within 10 days’ or ‘within 72 hours,’ subdivision (a)
describes how that deadline is computed.”52 Thus, Rule 6(a) in inapplicable here
because the Court specified a date certain (May 31, 2021) for the filing of pretrial
motions.53 Defendants’ pretrial motion deadline remained the date certain that was
requested by Plaintiffs and ordered by the Court – May 31, 2021.54 Further, as noted
earlier, this specific date was requested by Plaintiffs in their Motion to Extend
Deadlines,55 which was opposed by Defendants.56 The specific date of May 31, 2021
for the filing of pretrial motions was discussed with all counsel during the Court’s
telephone status conference. Thus, Defendants’ five pretrial motions filed after the
May 31, 2021 deadline57 are untimely.
Further, even if Rule 6(a) applied in this case, the Court rejects Defendants’
argument that the motion filed on June 2, 2021 58 is timely based upon the
inaccessibility of the Clerk’s Office on May 31, 2021 becaF.59 While Defendants filed
52 Id.
53 Offord v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 12-00524-BAJ-SCR, 2014 WL 4660823, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 17, 2014)
(citing Miller v. City of Ithaca, Civ. A. No. 3:10-cv-597, 2012 WL 1589249 (N.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012);
Murphy v. Auto Advantage, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:11cv11, 2012 WL 34057, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 5, 2012));
James v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 12-00523-BAJ-SCR, 2014 WL 4657566, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 16, 2014)
(citing same authority); Bell v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 12-00529-BAJ-SCR, 2014 WL 4657662, at *2 (M.D.
La. Sept. 16, 2014) (citing same authority); Hall v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 12-00528, 2014 WL 4657567, at
*2 (M.D. La. Sept. 16, 2014) (citing same authority); See, InProcessOut, LLC v. World Tech Toys, Inc.,
Civ. A. No. SA-18-CA-0869-FB, 2019 WL 6048020, at *1-2 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2019); Settlement
Funding, LLC v. RSL Funding, LLC, Civ. A. No. H-12-2044, 2014 WL 1493857, at *5 (S.D. Tex. April
15, 2014).
54 See, R. Docs. 316 & 322.
55 R. Doc. 316.
56 R. Doc. 320.
57 R. Docs. 334, 338, 339, 358, & 359.
58 R. Doc. 339.
59 InProcessOut, LLC, Civ. A. No. SA-18-CA-0869-FB, 2019 WL 6048020 at *2 (citing Domazet v.
Willoughby Supply Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:14-cv-1455 (GLS), 2015 WL 4205279, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July
10, 2015); Miller, Civ. A. No. 3:10-cv-597, 2012 WL 1589249 at *3).
a “Notice of Technical Difficulties” on June 2, 2021, unilaterally stating that the
CM/ECF system for the Eastern District of Louisiana was unavailable between 10:30
p.m. on June 1, 2021 and 1:24 a.m. on June 2, 2021, Defendants fail to provide any
evidence or information to substantiate that assertion or to show that the “technical
difficulties” were not the result of user error. More importantly, however, the Notice
does not indicate that Defendants even attempted to contact any court personnel to
confirm whether the CM/ECF system in the Eastern District of Louisiana was
experiencing technical difficulties when Defendants attempted to file their fifth
pretrial motion. Further, the Court is not aware of any such technical difficulties
with the CM/ECF system of the Eastern District of Louisiana during that time. Based
on these facts, the Court finds Defendants have failed to show that they failed to
timely file their motions due to excusable neglect, and denies Defendants’ request to
extend the deadline under Rule 6(b). As such, Defendants’ five pretrial motions are
untimely.
B. Defendants have failed to show that good cause exists under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b) to modify the Scheduling Order regarding the
pretrial motion deadline.
Because the Court has found that Defendants’ five pretrial motions are
untimely, the Court must determine whether good cause exists under Rule 16(b) to
amend the Scheduling Order with respect to the pretrial motion deadline.
Defendants assert that good cause exists because a one-day extension of the pretrial
deadline will not prejudice Plaintiffs, a one-day extension will have no impact on this
proceeding, the reason for delay was Defendants’ interpretation of Rule 6(a), and
Defendants have acted in good faith based solely on their interpretation of Rule 6(a).60
Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file a reply brief to address Defendants’ arguments
regarding good cause, nor did Plaintiffs address the good cause factors in their
Opposition brief to Defendants’ Motion for Extension.61
Regarding the first factor of the good cause analysis, the movant’s explanation
for failing to meet the deadline, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to provide
a reasonable explanation for failing to meet the deadline. As outlined in their
Opposition brief to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, Defendants were clearly aware of the
May 31, 2021 deadline and the fact that it was a legal holiday, as evidenced by the
actions taken by defense counsel to determine whether the motions would be timely
if filed on June 1, 2021. Specifically, Defendants assert that their counsel: (1) called
opposing counsel to float the idea of seeking a one-day extension of the deadline
(which Defendants never sought); (2) messaged “back and forth with co-counsel
within Deutsch Kerrigan Duris Homes about filing the motions on June 1;” and (3)
conducted research to determine “whether the courthouse was accessible on the
deadline.”62 The Court notes that these actions were apparently triggered by defense
counsel’s realization that the deadline fell on Memorial Day “and therefore would
ruin Memorial Day plans for staff working on the filings.”63 Defendants further
60 Id. at pp. 10-11.
61 R. Doc. 345.
62 R. Doc. 351 at pp. 2-3 & n.6.
63 Id. at p. 2.
assert that, at some point, “The decision was made that the motions would be filed on
June 1 based on the legal holiday and the inaccessibility of the courthouse.”64
The Court recognizes that Defendants cite several non-circuit decisions to
support their argument that federal courts apply Rule 6(a) to date certain deadlines.65
Curiously, Defendants include a quote from one of those cases, wherein the court
recognized that it is “unsettled” whether Rule 6(a) automatically extends a deadline
that is a fixed date, and references a case from within this Circuit that concluded that
Rule 6(a) does not apply to deadlines with a fixed date.66 Defendants were also aware
of the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2009 Amendment to Rule 6, which contradicts
their position in this case, but Defendants describe the commentary as “attempting
to cast doubt on the continued availability of Rule 6(a) for fixed-date deadlines.”67
Additionally, Defendants cite a case from the Middle District of Louisiana wherein
the court concluded that Rule 6(a) does not apply to date certain deadlines.68 Thus,
Defendants were well-aware that other courts in this Circuit have concluded that
Rule 6(a) does not apply to date certain deadlines, such as the May 31, 2021 deadline
in this case, but chose to ignore that precedent. The Court therefore finds that the
64 Id. at p. 3.
65 Id. at pp. 5-9.
66 Id. at p. 7 (quoting Green v. Chamberlain, Civ. A. No. 19-CV-0109-WBS-DMC-P, 2021 WL 323974,
at *2 (E.D. Ca. Feb. 1, 2021) (citing InProcessOut, LLC v. World Tech Toys, Inc., Civ. A. No. SA-18-CA-
0869-FB, 2019 WL 6048020, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2019))).
67 R. Doc. 351 at p. 8.
68 Id. at p. 8 (citing James v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 12-00523-BAJ-SCR, 2014 WL 4657566, at *2-3 (M.D.
La. Sept. 16, 2014)). The Court recognizes that the James court exercised its discretion and allowed
an untimely filing due to “the longstanding policy of this Court to set dates certain that do not fall on
weekends or legal holidays.” James, Civ. A. No. 12-00523-BAJ-SCR, 2014 WL 4657566, at *3.
Defendants have not pointed to any such policy in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
first factor weighs against finding that good cause exists to amend the Scheduling
Order to allow Defendants’ untimely motions.
The Court finds that the second factor of the good cause analysis, the
importance of the requested relief, weighs in favor of finding good cause, as
Defendants seek to file several substantive pretrial motions, including motions to
exclude testimony, evidence, and legal opinions from Plaintiffs’ experts69 and two
motions for summary judgment.70 Such motions have the potential to narrow the
issues and claims at trial. The Court likewise finds that the third factor, the potential
prejudice to Plaintiffs in granting the relief sought, also weighs in favor of finding
good cause, as Plaintiffs have not shown that they will be prejudiced by a one-day
extension of the pretrial motion deadline. Finally, the Court finds that the fourth
factor, the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice, is neutral because the
Court has determined that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the extension.
Although the foregoing analysis suggests that good cause may exist to grant
an extension of the pretrial motion deadline, the Court must also take into
consideration additional factors that reveal Defendants’ lack of diligence in this
matter. The Court will not turn a blind eye to the Defendants’ actions that
contributed to their current situation. The Court finds it troubling that Defendants
failed to meet the May 31, 2021 deadline after vehemently opposing Plaintiffs’ request
to continue the deadline from May 17, 2021. While Defendants make no mention of
69 R. Docs. 334, 338 & 359.
70 R. Docs. 339 & 358.
their strong opposition in either of the briefs currently before the Court,71 Defendants
previously argued that, “for the good of all the parties, the May 17 deadline should
remain unchanged,” 72 and that, “the extension requested by the Plaintiffs is
unreasonably long and such an extension would further threaten to destroy the pre-
trial schedule currently established for the July trial.”73 Defense counsel repeated
these arguments during the May 13, 2021 telephone status conference, but when
pressed by the Court, defense counsel could not articulate any prejudice suffered by
continuing the pretrial motion deadline to May 31, 2021. Because Defendants
indicated that they were prepared to file their pretrial motions by the original May
17, 2021 deadline, the Court advised defense counsel that they could file their pretrial
motions immediately and did not have to wait to file them on May 31, 2021.
Defendants, however, chose to ignore the Court’s guidance, waiting until the last
minute to file their motions.
The Court finds it ironic that Defendants contested Plaintiffs’ request for a
continuance until May 31, 2021 as “unreasonably long,” but then failed to file their
motions by May 31, 2021 and are now seeking an additional continuance of the
deadline. It is clear to the Court that Defendants are now open to a continuance of
the deadline only because they stand to benefit from it. Nonetheless, Defendants
continue to complain about the prior continuance of the pretrial motion deadline,
71 R. Docs. 351 at p. 2 & 344-1 at p. 1.
72 R. Doc. 320 at p. 3.
73 Id. at p. 4.
asserting that it “had been postponed for a significant period of time” by Plaintiffs.74
It is not lost on the Court that in opposing Plaintiffs’ prior request for a continuance,
Defendants asserted that the pretrial deadlines in this case “were hard but workable”
and that, “Defendants knew that the time for extensions had passed and it was
necessary to just buckle down and do it.”75 The Court does not understand why
Defendants did not apply that same attitude toward the May 31, 2021 pretrial motion
deadline. Further, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Defendants waited until
10:30 p.m. on June 1, 2021 to file their fifth pretrial motion.76 The Court will not
reward Defendants for waiting until the last minute to file their pretrial motions.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to show
that good cause exists under Rule 16(b) to extend the pretrial motion deadline beyond
May 31, 2021. When the Court sets deadlines in this case, the Court expects the
parties to adhere to those deadlines. Exercising its broad discretion to enforce the
Amended Scheduling Order and the deadlines contained therein, the Court finds that
the balance of the competing interests and equities in this particular case weigh
against modifying the Scheduling Order with respect to the pretrial motion deadline.
As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is granted and Defendants’ Motion for Extension
is denied.
74 R. Doc. 351 at pp. 2. See, R. Doc. 344 at p. 2 (“Moreover, Plaintiffs have already received a 14-day
extension of the pretrial motion deadline.”).
75 R. Doc. 320 at p. 2.
76 R. Doc. 344-1 at p. 3.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Strike Defendants’ Motions [Docs. 334, 336, 337, 338 and 339]77 is GRANTED,
and Defendants’ five pretrial motions filed after the May 31, 2021 deadline 7 are
STRICKEN fromthe record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Non-
Evidentiary Pretrial Motion Deadline.’79 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 15, 2021.
Ond7& Vetter
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
7R. Doc. 342.
Docs. 334, 338, 339, 358 & 359.
7 R. Doc. 344.