# Perron v. Travis

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · September 21, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192393

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** September 21, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192393

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SARAH PERRON, CIVIL ACTION NO.
Tutrix on Behalf of Her Minor Child, MFJ
20-221-BAJ-EWD
VERSUS

JEFF TRAVIS, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Extension to File Discovery (“Motion”), filed by Plaintiff
Sarah Perron (“Plaintiff”), which seeks a 15-day extension of the extended fact discovery deadline
(February 15, 2022) for Plaintiff to obtain responses to discovery requests made verbally and/or
informally to Defendants Jeff Travis and Cullen Wilson (the “Sheriff Defendants”) after the
February 1 and February 2, 2022 depositions of Cullen Wilson, Lori Bell, and Mark Kemp
(“February Depositions”).1 The Motion is opposed by the Sheriff Defendants.2 The issues are
fully briefed and oral argument is not necessary.3 The Motion will be denied because Plaintiff has
failed to show good cause to amend the Scheduling Order to further extend the fact discovery
deadline.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on April 9, 2020, on behalf of her minor child related
to the death of Myron R. Flowers (“Flowers”). Plaintiff alleges that Flowers “died at the hands of
the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Town of Clinton and their Police Department on
April 12, 2019.”4 According to the Complaint, Flowers was killed by Defendant Deputy Cullen

1 R. Doc. 65.
2 R Doc. 70.
3 See Local Rule 78(b), which provides that oral argument is allowed only when ordered by the Court.
4 R. Doc. 1, ¶ A(5).
Wilson after Wilson stopped Flowers’ vehicle.5 Plaintiff also alleges a pattern of constitutional
violations by Defendants.6 A timeline of events in the case is helpful to the analysis of Plaintiff’s
Motion:
April 9, 2020 Complaint filed7

April 13, 2020 Scheduling conference order issued, setting conference for June 11,
20208

May 28, 2020 Scheduling conference continued to August 20, 2020 because all
defendants have not appeared

June 26, 2020 Plaintiff submits summonses9

July 8, 2020 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service is
granted10

August 5, 2020 Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference is granted;
scheduling conference rescheduled for September 24, 202011

September 17, 2020 September 24, 2020 scheduling conference canceled because
Defendants Lori Bell and the Board of Aldermen have not appeared
and pending motion to dismiss requests dismissal of Plaintiff's
claims against the Town, as well as Lori Bell and the Board of
Aldermen.12

March 29, 2021 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are granted in part. Plaintiff’s
claims against Cullen Wilson and Lori Bell, in their official
capacities, as well claims against the Board of Aldermen, are
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Monell official policy claims
are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days to
file amended complaint.13

June 8, 2021 Scheduling conference order issued14

5 R. Doc. 1, ¶ C.
6 R. Doc. 1, ¶ D.
7 R. Doc. 1.
8 R. Doc. 3.
9 R. Docs. 10-15.
10 R. Docs. 16-17.
11 R. Docs. 26-27.
12 R. Doc. 40.
13 R. Docs. 28, 29, 35 & 43. No amended complaint is filed.
14 R. Doc. 46.
July 22, 2021 Joint Status Report filed15

August 4, 2021 Scheduling order issued with dates proposed in Status Report16

August 23, 2021 Sheriff Defendants file Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to
discovery propounded June 2, 202117

August 24, 2021 Town of Clinton files Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to
discovery propounded May 26, 202118

August 26, 2021 Telephone conference held on Motions to Compel. Plaintiff’s
counsel admits difficulty contacting client. Plaintiff is ordered to
produce discovery responses by no later than September 3, 202119

October 5, 2021 Town of Clinton files motion for sanctions for failure to comply
with Court Order20

October 6, 2021 Sheriff Defendants file motion for sanctions for failure to comply
with Court Order21

October 12, 2021 Telephone conference held on Motions for Sanctions. “Plaintiff’s
counsel explained the reasons for her failure to timely respond to
discovery and/or comply with the August 26 Order, as extended,
which included personal issues, continued difficulty contacting her
client, who was impacted by Hurricane Ida, workforce issues, etc.”
Court expresses concern about possible pattern of Plaintiff’s
counsel’s inability to meet deadlines. Motions for sanctions
terminated as discovery responses were provided October 12,
2021.”22

January 13, 2022 Plaintiff files Motion for Extension requesting an extension of thirty
days to complete fact discovery23

January 18, 2022 Telephone conference held on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension.
After discussion, the Motion for Extension is granted over defense
objection, but it was noted during the telephone conference that
Local Civil Rule 26(d) restricted Plaintiff’s ability to serve written
discovery during the extension because it would not be due until

15 R. Doc. 47.
16 R. Doc. 49.
17 R. Doc. 52.
18 R. Doc. 53.
19 R. Doc. 54.
20 R. Doc. 56.
21 R. Doc. 57.
22 R. Doc. 59.
23 R. Doc. 61.
after the February 15, 2022 extended discovery deadline even if
propounded the date of the conference.24

February 15, 2022 Instant Motion filed by Plaintiff seeking to obtain responses to
discovery requests made verbally and/or informally to the Sheriff
Defendants after the February Depositions25

February 18, 2022 Telephone conference held on Plaintiff’s Motion. The parties were
instructed to confer and for Plaintiff to withdraw the Motion if
resolved. The Sheriff Defendants were instructed to file opposition
memorandum if the issues were not resolved.26

March 8, 2022 Sheriff Defendants file opposition memorandum to Motion27

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard for Amendment of Scheduling Order

Rule 16(b) requires good cause to amend a scheduling order deadline. “The good cause
standard requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”28
B. Plaintiff’s Motion Will Be Denied
This case, which involves serious allegations that Flowers was killed by law enforcement
officers, had been pending for almost two years when Plaintiff’s Motion to extend the fact
discovery deadline was filed. Fact discovery in this matter could have proceeded as early as
September 3, 2020, since the parties were required by the Court’s original Scheduling Conference
Order to conduct their Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f) conference twenty-one (21) days before the
September 24, 2020 scheduling conference.29 Even if the parties chose to postpone fact discovery

24 R. Doc. 63.
25 R Doc. 65.
26 R. Doc. 67.
27 R. Doc. 70.
28 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).
29 R. Docs. 3 & 27. It appears the parties conducted the Rule 26(f) conference because they filed a Joint Status report
on September 10, 2020. R. Doc. 37.
pending resolution of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, those motions were ruled on by the
Court on March 29, 2021,30 at which time fact discovery could have resumed. By August 4, 2021,
the Court had issued a Scheduling Order adopting the proposed dates submitted by the parties,
including a January 15, 2022 fact discovery deadline.31 Discovery appears to have been proceeding

by August 2021 because Plaintiff was the subject of motions to compel, filed in early August 2021
by the Sheriff Defendants and the Town of Clinton Defendants.32 Plaintiff was given more time
to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.33 Plaintiff then failed to timely respond to
Defendants’ discovery requests, as ordered, so Defendants filed motions for sanctions in October
2021.34 Plaintiff’s counsel explained the difficulties encountered timely providing discovery
responses, which was accepted by the Court and sanctions were not imposed on Plaintiff at that
time.35 In January 2022, Plaintiff asked to extend the fact discovery deadline, which was opposed
by Defendants.36 Notwithstanding the defense objection, Plaintiff’s request to extend the fact
discovery deadline was granted during a telephone conference with the parties, but it was
specifically noted that Plaintiff would not be able to serve written discovery during the extension

under Local Civil Rule 26 because the discovery would not be due before the extended discovery
deadline, even if propounded the date of the telephone conference.37
This Court is sensitive to the myriad challenges that can face lawyers trying to meet
deadlines in a case, particularly those in small firms and solo practitioners, who often lack the

30 R. Doc. 43.
31 R. Docs. 47 & 49.
32 R. Docs. 52 & 53.
33 R. Doc. 54.
34 R. Docs. 56 & 57.
35 R. Doc. 59.
36 R. Doc. 61. According to the Sheriff Defendants, Plaintiff had not propounded any written discovery as of January
13, 2022 when she filed the motion requesting extension of the fact discovery deadline, nor did Plaintiff do so at any
time in the litigation. R. Doc. 70, pp. 2-3; and see R. Doc. 70-2, p. 1 (“It is also undisputed that Plaintiff has not
propounded any written discovery to Sheriff Defendants or any other defendant at any point during this litigation.”).
37 R. Doc. 63.
additional support of a large firm, but Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to complete fact
discovery in this matter, notwithstanding limitations necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic,
Hurricane Ida, and any personal or professional issues. The timeline of events establishes that
Plaintiff has been given multiple extensions related to fact discovery, such that she cannot show

her diligence in attempting to meet even the extended fact discovery deadline, particularly not
where, as here, Plaintiff never formally propounded any formal written discovery.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the requested extension is to permit her
to obtain responses to discovery requests made verbally and/or informally to the Sheriff
Defendants after the February Depositions.38 However, the Sheriff Defendants have represented
that they have provided all responsive information, notwithstanding that Plaintiff never
propounded formal discovery requests.39 Plaintiff did not seek leave to respond to the assertions
in the Sheriff Defendants’ opposition memorandum that they have provided all responsive
information. If, as the Sheriff Defendants state, there is no additional responsive information yet
to be produced, this also militates against a finding of good cause to further extend the fact
discovery deadline for Plaintiff to obtain responses from the Sheriff Defendants.40

38 R. Doc. 65. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that upon completion of the February Depositions, “Plaintiff requested
from the Defendants a copy of the policies and procedures if any on, the use of force, Traffic stops, disciplinary matters
regarding personnel. The written agreement with the Delta Task Force and their policies and procedures on the use
of force. The full and complete video of the shooting/incident that was recorded on April 12, 2019. All photographs
of the scene; Video interview of Dy. Cullen Wilson and officer Richard Baudoin; Facebook postings, Instagram
Postings and cell log for the Months of March, April, September 2019 of Dy Wilson. A copy of the log of Complaints
against the Sheriff’s office and the Town of Clinton department FY 2015-2022. All complaints lodged against the
former and current Chief of Police for the Town of Clinton FY 2015-2022.” R. Doc. 65.
39 According to the Sheriff Defendants, they fully satisfied all discovery obligations and requirements and “produced
all items” within their possession, custody, or control, responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, although the requests were
not formal discovery requests. R. Doc. 70.
40 Even if the discovery deadline were extended as Plaintiff requests, the Sheriff Defendants have represented that
they have provided all responsive information, and a motion to compel would not be available to Plaintiff because
the discovery requests were not formally propounded in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Drake v. Danos and Carole Marine Contractors, No. 04-3522, 2005 WL 8174003, at * 2 (E.D. La. July 22, 2005)
(noting informal discovery requests are not proper for a motion to compel).
III. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to further extend the fact discovery deadline,
IT IS ORDERED that Motion for Extension to File Discovery, filed by Plaintiff Sarah

Perron (“Plaintiff”), which seeks a 15-day extension of the extended fact discovery deadline for
Plaintiff to obtain responses to discovery requests made verbally and/or informally to Defendants
Jeff Travis and Cullen Wilson after the depositions of Cullen Wilson, Lori Bell, and Mark Kemp,41
is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 21, 2022.
S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

41 R. Doc. 65.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192393. Public record. Not legal advice.