Washington et al v. Smith et al, No. 2:2022cv00632 - Document 51 (E.D. La. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 44 Motion to extend the deadlines for plaintiffs' expert reports and the close of discovery. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/20/2022. (ko)

Download PDF
Washington et al v. Smith et al Doc. 51 Case 2:22-cv-00632-LMA-MBN Document 51 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRUCE WASHINGTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 22-632 RANDY SMITH, ET AL. SECTION I ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion1 to extend the deadlines for plaintiffs’ expert reports and the close of discovery. Defendants oppose 2 the motion. A court’s scheduling order may be modified “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Fifth Circuit applies a four-factor test in considering requests to modify a scheduling order, weighing (1) the explanation for the failure to adhere to the deadline at issue; (2) the importance of the proposed modification to the scheduling order; (3) potential prejudice; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 790– 92 (5th Cir. 1990). “A trial court has broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of its pretrial orders ‘which, toward the end of court efficiency, is to expedite pretrial procedure.’” Boyd v. Boeing Co., No. 15-25, 2016 WL 760687, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 1 2 R. Doc. No. 48. R. Doc. No. 49. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00632-LMA-MBN Document 51 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 2 2016) (Africk, J.) (quoting S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). Having considered the parties’ positions, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have not established good cause for the proposed deadline extensions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion 3 is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20, 2022. _______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 R. Doc. No. 48. 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.