Michel v. Ford Motor Company, et al, No. 2:2018cv04738 - Document 112 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 80 Motion to Strike, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/27/2018. (am) Modified text on 12/27/2018 (am).

Download PDF
Michel v. Ford Motor Company, et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VICTOR MICHEL, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-4738 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is defendants Cum m ins’s and Ford’s m otion to strike plaintiff’s oppositions to their m otions in lim ine and m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, and to strike plaintiffs’ m otion to am end the Court’s scheduling order. 1 The Court denies the m otion because plaintiffs have dem onstrated excusable neglect, and because the m otion to am end the Court’s scheduling order was tim ely. Under the Court’s scheduling order, the parties were required to subm it all dispositive m otions in tim e for hearing on Decem ber 5, 20 18. 2 On November 20 , 20 18, defendants tim ely filed four expert m otions in lim ine and a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 3 Under Local Rule 7.5, plaintiffs’ 1 2 3 R. Doc. 80 . R. Doc. 53. R. Doc. 66; R. Doc. 67; R. Doc. 68; R. Doc. 69; R. Doc. 70 . Dockets.Justia.com responses to these m otions were due on Novem ber 27, 20 18. Plaintiffs filed their responses on November 28, 20 18, one day late. Late oppositions are evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)’s “excusable neglect” standard. See Vasudevan v. Adm ’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 70 6 F. App’x 147, 151 (5th Cir. 20 17); Adam s v. Travelers Indem . Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 6). Courts consider the following factors in evaluating excusable neglect: “the danger of prejudice to the [nonm ovant], the length of the delay and its potential im pact on the judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the m ovant, and whether the m ovant acted in good faith.” Adam s, 465 F.3d at 162 n.8 (quoting Farina v. Mission Inv. Trust, 615 F.2d 10 68, 10 76 (5th Cir. 1980 )). Here, plaintiffs filed their responses only one day late, and proceedings were not delayed. Because defendants tim ely filed their replies and did not request a one-day continuance of their deadline, they do not appear to have been prejudiced. There is no evidence of bad faith. Plaintiffs have therefore dem onstrated excusable neglect. Next, plaintiffs’ m otion to am end the Court’s scheduling order was not filed late, because the December 5 deadline only applied to dispositive m otions and to motions in lim ine regarding the adm issibility of expert testim ony. A m otion to am end a scheduling order is neither a dispositive 2 m otion nor a m otion in lim ine regarding the adm issibility of expert testim ony. Plaintiffs were therefore free to file the m otion to am end on November 30 , and the Court will consider the m otion on the m erits in its order ruling on defendants’ m otions in lim ine. I. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ m otion to strike plaintiffs’ responses and their m otion to am end the Court’s scheduling order is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _27th _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 18. _____________________ 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.