# Flanks v. City of New Orleans

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · July 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11111465

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** July 30, 2025
- **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/11111465

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAYMOND FLANKS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS CASE NO. 23-6897

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(4)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Raymond Flanks and Defendants City of New Orleans, Jason
Williams, Anne Kirkpatrick, and John Dillmann’s Joint Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order.1 The
parties assert that a continuance of the December 8, 2025 trial date is necessary. The partis argue
that a continuance is warranted because the NOPD has been unable to access and search certain
microfilm records due to issues with its microfilm machine. The parties contend that they cannot
finalize fact discovery until those records are reviewed. Additionally, the parties state one of
Plaintiff’s attorneys recently experienced an unexpected illness, causing several depositions to be
rescheduled. The parties submit they will not be able to finalize their expert reports until the
depositions are complete.
Federal district courts have the inherent power to enforce their scheduling orders,2 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.”3 Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the

1 Rec. Doc. 47.
2 See Flaska v. Little River Marine Const. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 886 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1968) (citing Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

1
sound discretion of the trial court.* In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s
“Judgment range is exceedingly wide,” for it “must consider not only the facts of the particular
case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.”°
The Court finds that the parties has not established good cause for a continuance of the trial
date in this matter. The Court previously continued the trial from June 2, 2025 to December 8,
2025 to allow time for the completion of discovery. Another continuance of the trial date is not
warranted. However, considering the difficulties the parties have encountered in completing of
discovery, the Court will extend the discovery deadline, expert report deadline, and the deadline
for submission of Daubert motions. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order®
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the July 28, 2025 deadline for Plaintiff to disclose
expert reports is continued to August 29, 2025. The August 25, 2025 deadline for Defendants to
disclose expert reports is continued to September 30, 2025. The September 19, 2025 discovery
deadline is continued to October 17, 2025. The October 15, 2025 deadline for submission of
Daubert motions is continued to October 29, 2025.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 30th day of July, 2025.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 United States vy. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.1996).
> Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (Sth Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
® Rec. Doc. 47.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11111465. Public record. Not legal advice.