Berenson v. Administrators of the Tulane University Educational Fund, No. 2:2017cv00329 - Document 42 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 19 Motion to Expedite Trial. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/14/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Berenson v. Administrators of the Tulane University Educational Fund Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DR. GERALD S. BERENSON VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-329 THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FUND SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff’s m otion for an expedited trial setting. 1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of a dispute over control of the Bogalusa Heart Study. 2 Plaintiff Dr. Gerald Berenson is a 94-year old doctor, scientist and professor. 3 Plaintiff brings suit against Defendant, the Adm inistrators of the Tulane Educational Fund (“Tulane”), 4 for declaratory judgment and 1 R. Doc. 19. R. Doc. 13. For a more extensive review of the factual and procedural history of this case, see R. Doc. 24. 3 R. Doc. 13 at 2. 4 Defendant was incorrectly designated as “The Adm inistrators of the Tulane University Educational Fund.” See R. Doc. 1. 1 2 Dockets.Justia.com dam ages. 5 Plaintiff requests, am ong other relief, a declaration that he is entitled to access Bogalusa Heart Study related data to conduct his research. 6 Plaintiff also brings claim s under Louisiana state law and the federal Age Discrim ination in Em ployment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq. 7 On March 2, 20 17, the Court held a prelim inary conference with counsel for both parties and set this matter for trial to begin on J anuary 29, 20 18. 8 This was the first available date for trial and neither party expressed an objection to this schedule during the prelim inary conference. 9 Plaintiff now m oves for an expedited trial setting. 10 Defendant opposes this m otion. 11 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD The Court has discretion to “determ ine the order in which civil actions are heard and determ ined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration of any action” for good cause. 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a). Good cause is shown under § 1657 “if a right under the Constitution of the United States 5 R. Doc. 13. Id. at 20 . 7 Id. at 1-21. On J uly 11, 20 17, the Court dism issed plaintiff’s state law claim s for age discrim ination, defamation, and tortious interference with em ploym ent contract. See R. Doc. 24. 8 R. Doc. 18 at 3. 9 R. Doc. 20 at 3; R. Doc. 23 at 3. 10 R. Doc. 19. 11 R. Doc. 20 . 2 6 or a Federal Statute . . . would be m aintained in a factual context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) further provides that “[a] schedule m ay be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In m aking scheduling decisions, 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.” HC Gun & Knife Show s, Inc. v. City of Houston, 20 1 F.3d 544, 54950 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ); see also Versai Mgm t. Corp. v. Clarendon Am . Ins. Co., 597 F.3d 729, 740 (5th Cir. 20 10 ). III. D ISCU SSION Plaintiff argues that an expedited trial setting is warranted because he is 94 years old and Tulane is preventing him from conducting his research and continuing his career during his rem aining projected life span. 12 Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to dem onstrate any change in his circum stances since the trial date was agreed upon at the prelim inary conference. 13 In addition, defendant contends that it would be unfair to 12 13 R. Doc. 19 at 1; R. Doc. 23 at 2. R. Doc. 20 at 5, 8. 3 expedite trial because discovery rem ains in its early stages and potential witnesses have already planned their schedules around the J anuary 20 18 trial date. 14 The Court finds that plaintiff has not shown good cause to expedite trial in this m atter. At the prelim inary conference, the parties were given the first available trial date on the Court’s calendar. Although plaintiff argues that an expedited trial is warranted because of his advanced age, he does not indicate that he is currently in poor health or that his age will im pair his ability to present his case at trial. 15 Cf. W akefield v. Glob. Fin. Private Capital, LLC., No. 15-451, 20 15 WL 12699870 , at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 20 15) (ordering a new scheduling order with a preferential trial date because plaintiff’s advanced age and deteriorating health m ight prevent her from testifying at trial). Nor does plaintiff’s health depend on the outcome of this case. Cf. Davis v. Selectcare, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 197, 198 (S.D. Mich. 1993) (noting that trial was expedited to determ ine whether health insurance policy was required to cover treatm ent for plaintiff’s cancer). 14 Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff also contends that he would be entitled to a preferential trial setting in Louisiana state court because he is over 70 years old. See La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1573; R. Doc. 19-1 at 6. But Louisiana state rules of civil procedure do not apply in federal court. 4 15 Plaintiff instead argues that he needs prom pt judicial relief to enable him to continue his research. 16 Many litigants have compelling reasons to desire a speedy rem edy, however, and the Court’s schedule does not perm it expedited consideration of all these cases. See Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 10 9 F. Supp. 3d 67, 72 (D.D.C. 20 15) (finding that plaintiffs’ interest in prom pt resolution of the litigation did not constitute good cause to expedite trial, where plaintiffs were all at least 60 years old and som e were in poor health). Accordingly, the Court will not expedite trial in this m atter. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 14th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of August, 20 17 _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 16 R. Doc. 23 at 1-2. 5
]]>
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.
