Simmons v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC v. Simmons, No. 2:2015cv01124 - Document 33 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting MOTION 26 to Continue Trial filed by Jordan Simmons. The Court orders the pretrial conference and trial continued. The Court further orders the parties to complete all outstanding discovery by April 25, 2016.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 3/14/16.(jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Simmons v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC v. Simmons Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA J ORDAN SIMMONS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-1124 GALLIANO MARINE SERVICE, LLC SECTION: R(3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff J ordan Sim m ons's m otion to continue the trial date set for March 28, 20 16.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. IN TROD U CTION This is a J ones Act personal injury action, in which plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe shoulder injuries while working on defendant's vessel. Trial in this m atter is currently set for March 28, 20 16. Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary because both parties are still conducting discovery 1 R. Doc. 26. Dockets.Justia.com and plaintiff's counsel has a num ber of unavoidable scheduling conflicts.2 Defendant opposes the m otion.3 II. D ISCU SSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that "[a] schedule m ay be m odified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court's "judgm ent range is exceedingly wide," for it "m ust consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the dem ands on counsel's tim e and the court's." Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 70 1, 736 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (internal citations om itted). Here, plaintiff has established good cause to justify a continuance of trial. Plaintiff asserts that discovery in this case is still ongoing. According to plaintiff, defendant took the deposition of a witness, Dr. Larkin, on February 19, three days after the February 16 discovery deadline. Defendant also noticed the deposition of plaintiff's treating physician for March 22, six days 2 Id. 3 R. Doc. 29. 2 before the current trial date, while plaintiff recently requested to depose a witness for the defense. Plaintiff also asserts that his counsel has several unavoidable scheduling conflicts in late March and early April. For these reasons, the Court orders the pretrial conference and trial continued. The Court further orders the parties to com plete all outstanding discovery by April 25, 20 16. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's m otion to continue trial. The Court ORDERS the parties to contact the Court's case m anager to schedule new trial and pre-trial conference dates. The Court further ORDERS that all outstanding discovery shall be com pleted by April 25, 20 16. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of March, 20 16. 14th _____________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 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.
