Cedyco Corporation v. Suard et al, No. 2:2007cv03184 - Document 147 (E.D. La. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 136 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and 136 MOTION to review Magistrate's order denying defendants' motion for protective order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/20/08. (gbw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cedyco Corporation v. Suard et al Doc. 147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CEDYCO CORPORATION CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 07-3184 LOUIS O’NEIL SUARD, JR., ET AL. SECTION: "A" (3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion to Review Magistrate’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Rec. Doc. 136) filed by defendants Louis O’Neil Suard, Jr. a/k/a Neil Suard, Suard Barge Service, Inc., Baby Oil, Inc., Premier Service, Inc., and Texas Injection, LP. Plaintiff Cedyco Corp. opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on October 15, 2008, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.1 Plaintiff has alleged inter alia RICO claims against the 1 Oral argument has been requested but the Court is not persuaded that oral argument would assist the Court in ruling on this motion. Dockets.Justia.com defendants pertaining to charges imposed against revenue for operating the CL&F #2 well located in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Trial on the merits is set for March 30, 2009. Throughout this litigation Defendants have challenged Plaintiff’s standing to bring this lawsuit by questioning Plaintiff’s ownership interest in the subject well. Defendant moved for a protective order to limit discovery to the threshold issue of whether Cedyco owns a valid working interest in the well. The assigned magistrate judge denied the motion for protective order after concluding that the Court’s current scheduling order would not permit for such bifurcated discovery, (Rec. Doc. 135), and it is that ruling that Defendants now ask this Court to review. The motion is DENIED in all respects. This case has been pending since June of 2007 and staged discovery would only delay this matter even further. Plaintiff is entitled to full discovery and the magistrate judge correctly denied the request for a protective order. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Review Magistrate’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Rec. Doc. 136) filed by defendants Louis O’Neil Suard, Jr. a/k/a Neil Suard, Suard Barge 2 Service, Inc., Baby Oil, Inc., Premier Service, Inc., and Texas Injection, LP. is DENIED. October 20, 2008 JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
