Coleman v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv04158 - Document 71 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 69 Motion to Continue Submission Date; denying 70 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/27/2022. (mm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coleman v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al Doc. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STEVE COLEMAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-4158 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is plaintiff Steve Coleman’s motion to indefinitely continue the submission date for defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. 1 Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for expedited consideration of his motion to continue the submission dates of defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion in limine.2 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for expedited consideration is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to continue the submission date of defendants’ motions pending the outcome of a sanctions motion filed in Torres-Lugo v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., No. 20-210 (E.D. La. June 3, 2022) (ECF No. 101) is also DENIED. The Court finds 1 2 R. Doc. 69. R. Doc. 70. Dockets.Justia.com that the issues involved in the pending sanctions motion are not outcome determinative of defendants’ motion in limine on the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Cook’s report, or on the merits of defendants’ summary judgment motion. 27th day of June, 2022. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
