Hamilton et al v. Ochsner Health Systems, Inc., No. 2:2012cv01398 - Document 30 (E.D. La. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER & REASONS re plas' 27 Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony by Jane Eason: for the reasons stated, plas' Motion in Limine is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/11/2012. (rll, ) Modified on 12/11/2012 to edit doc type (rll, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hamilton et al v. Ochsner Health Systems, Inc. Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CURTIS HAMILTON, et al. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12-1398 OCHSNER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al. SECTION: “G”(1) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Plaintiffs Curtis Hamilton and Rosa Hamilton’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By Jane Eason, PT,1 filed on December 7, 2012. Jane Eason is a proposed expert witness for Defendant Ochsner Health Systems, Inc. (“Oschner”) listed as a “will call” witness in the proposed pre-trial order.2 However, a scheduling order was issued in this matter on August 9, 2012 and states that, “Motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony shall be filed and served in sufficient time to permit hearing thereon no later than NOVEMBER 21, 2012.”3 “A schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”4A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion as untimely when the movant never requested leave to amend the scheduling order deadlines nor provides an explanation as to why the motion was untimely filed.5 Here, Plaintiffs have never requested a modification of the deadline to file motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and, moreover, have not even 1 Rec. Doc. 27. 2 See Rec. Doc. 26 at p. 14. 3 Rec. Doc. 7 at p. 2 (emphasis in original). 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 5 Argo v. Woods, 399 Fed. App’x. 1, 3 (5th Cir. 2010). Dockets.Justia.com acknowledged that the pending motion is untimely. Because of the late filing, the submission date for this motion is January 7, 2013 – the day trial is set to commence. Therefore, the Court will deny the pending motion as untimely.6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By Jane Eason, PT7 is DENIED. 11th NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ________ day of December, 2012. _________________________________________ NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Id. (citing Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. D.I.C., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 252, 253-54 (S.D. Tex. 1984) (denying a motion filed after the cut-off date because “[t]he Defendant offers the court no explanation or showing of ‘good cause’ why on the eve of trial the motion should be considered.”)). 7 Rec. Doc. 27. 2
]]>
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.
