The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHARON LEWIS, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 21-198-SM-RLB
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL
AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE,
Defendant
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Collis B. Temple,
Jr. and for Leave to Submit a Request for Production of Documents filed by Sharon Lewis
(“Plaintiff”).1 The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College (the “Board”) filed an opposition.2 For the reasons that follow, the
Motion to Compel is DENIED as stated herein.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case has been extensively laid out in the nineteen opinions
issued by this Court since its inception.3 The Court will recite only the procedural
developments relevant to the instant discovery dispute. On November 7, 2023, pursuant
to this Court’s ruling, Plaintiff took the limited deposition of LSU President William F.
Tate IV.4 Other than the exceptions made for the Tate deposition and discovery related to
Plaintiff’s cell phone, the fact discovery period in this case closed on October 4, 2023.5
1 R. Doc. 448.
2 R. Doc. 461.
3 See R. Docs. 107, 124, 165, 185, 254, 255, 280, 283, 284, 316, 332, 335, 340, 362, 363, 378, 431, 440, and
447.
4 See Order and Reasons, Nov. 2, 2023 (R. Doc. 440).
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides “[a] schedule may be modified
only for good cause.”6 “Good cause requires a showing that the relevant scheduling order
deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the
extension.”7 Courts consider several factors in determining whether a party has provided
good cause to modify a discovery deadline, including:
“‘(1) [T]he explanation for the untimely conduct; (2) the importance of the
requested untimely action; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the untimely
conduct; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.’
Additionally, courts consider [(5)] the length of time since the expiration of the
deadline, [(6)] the length of time that the moving party has known about the
discovery, [(7)] whether the discovery deadline has been extended, [(8)] whether
dispositive motions have been scheduled or filed, [(9)] the age of the case, and
[(10)] disruption of the court's schedule.”8
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to depose Temple in a deposition limited to two hours and confined
to discussion of Tate’s meeting with Temple and Wilson.9 Further, Plaintiff seeks leave to
submit a Request for Production of Documents limited to communications “between
Temple and Tate made between the meeting at Temple’s home and the Board approval of
Wilson’s contract.”10
Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing good cause to allow the
untimely deposition and discovery under Rule 16(b)(4). In fact, Plaintiff does not even
discuss good cause or Rule 16(b) in her Motion to Compel.11
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
7 Louisiana Corral Mgmt., LLC v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., No. CV 22-2398, 2023 WL 2185981 at *4 (E.D.
La. Feb. 23, 2023).
8 Id. (quoting Huey v. Super Fresh/Sav-A-Center, Inc., No. 07-1169, 2008 WL 2633767, at *1 (E.D. La.
June 25, 2008)).
9 R. Doc. 448-1 at 3.
10 Id.
Plaintiff’s explanation for the untimely request is that she only learned of Temple’s
potential involvement in the hiring of Wilson during the deposition of LSU President Tate
on November 7, 2023.12 However, all other factors weigh against a finding of good cause.
Plaintiff argues that she has reason to believe Tate hired Frank Wilson at the urging
of Temple and conspired with Temple to terminate Plaintiff to protect Wilson.13 Tate’s
deposition testimony, however, indicates Tate’s only interaction with Temple regarding
Wilson was on a single occasion when Temple introduced Tate to Wilson for a “greeting
and hello.”14 Despite this testimony, Plaintiff urges “it is simply not believable” that
Temple would have arranged a meeting between Tate and Wilson if “there was no
discussion about Wilson moving to LSU” at that time.15 Plaintiff cites the fact that Tate
was “aware that four (4) women have accused Wilson of sexual misconduct” and yet
“Wilson has never been investigated and remains employed at LSU.”16 Plaintiff argues
this supports her claim that “in the meeting at Temple’s home, Temple discussed and/or
directed Tate to hire Wilson.”17 Plaintiff provided no additional factual basis to support
her argument.
Regardless of the limited scope of her request, Plaintiff has not sufficiently
established the relevance, much less the importance, of deposing Temple, since, as the
Board argues in its opposition, “there is no indication that [Temple] has any personal or
unique knowledge regarding facts related to Plaintiff’s claims whatsoever.”18 Moreover,
Temple was never mentioned in Plaintiff’s complaint or deposition.19 Plaintiff has
12 R. Doc. 448-1 at 3.
13 Id.
14 Tate Depo. at 15-16.
15 R. Doc. 448-1 at 2.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 R. Doc. 461 at 3.
produced no support for her belief that Tate hired Wilson at the urging of Temple or that
Tate conspired with Temple to terminate Plaintiff to protect Wilson. In fact, Tate testified
Temple introduced him to Plaintiff at a football game2° and that he did not discuss
Plaintiffs complaints against Wilson with Temple.2!
Trial in this matter is set to begin on December 11, 2023,?2 and dispositive motions
have already been filed.23 Accordingly, the Board would suffer significant prejudice if an
extension to the discovery deadline were granted at this time. Plaintiff has had over two
years to conduct discovery and has not shown good cause for granting an extension to the
expired discovery deadline on the eve of trial. Most importantly, Plaintiff has not given
the Court any reason to believe that Temple has any knowledge regarding facts related to
Plaintiff's claims.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel?4 is DENIED as stated
herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of November, 2023.
SUSIE Moe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20 Tate Depo. at 8.
21 Id, at 9.
22 R, Doc. 441.
23 Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 424).
24R, Doc. 448.