Schreckengast et al v. Carollo et al

Filing 141

ORDER CONTINUING Trial until further notice. The parties' representatives are hereby DIRECTED to appear at the 1st Floor Courtroom in Savannah, Georgia at 9:00 AM on June 27, 2017 for a hearing. The trial schedule will be resolved at that time. ORDER GRANTING 128 Motion in Limine insofar as the deposition scheduled for this afternoon, June 23, 2017, is AVOIDED. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/23/2017. (csr)

3n t|ie ?l9niteb ^tatzst Bisstritt Cottirt
foir t|ie ^otitlieni Bissttict of 4leotgfa
^oOonnaib Bibisiiott
JOHN

PATRICK SCHRECKENGAST

& ANDREA SCHRECKENGAST,

Plaintiffs,
CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT

SERVICES,

INC.,

Intervenor-Plaintiff,
CV 416-38

V.

CHARLES S. CAROLLO,

individually,
INWAY,

& LANDSTAR

INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This case will be CONTINUED.

There are four factors [a court]
generally consider[s] in
determining whether a trial continuance is warranted.
First,
we
examine
the
diligence
of
the
party requesting the
continuance to ready the case prior to the date set for
trial.

Second, we consider the likelihood that the need for a

continuance

granted.

could

Third,

we

have

been

met

if

a

continuance

was

examine the extent to which granting the

continuance would have been an inconvenience to the court and

the opposing party.
Fourth, we consider the extent to which
the requesting party might have suffered harm as a result of
the

.

.

.

court's denial of the continuance.

factor we entertain is whether the .
prior continuance in the case.

A072A

(Rev. 8/82)

.

.

Another relevant

court has granted a

SEC V. Levin, 849 F.3d 995, 1005 {11th Cir. 2017).

Despite some degree of diligence from both parties in

preparing this case for trial, five major motions were filed
in the past two days.
brief continuance.

These issues can be resolved given a

The continuance is an inconvenience to the

Court, but allows it the benefit of adequate time to consider
and resolve the outstanding motions.
would

inconvenience

Defendants,

Although a' continuance

it

is

not

Defendants

raised the possibility of one

resolution

for

one

of

their

June

21

uncontemplated:

as

an alternative

motions.

Dkt.

No.

127.

Plaintiffs might have suffered serious harm from the denial of

a continuance, in that they may have been needlessly deprived
of potentially significant medical expert testimony.

Lastly,

the Court has not granted any prior continuances in this case.
Therefore,
The parties'

the

the

case

is

CONTINUED until

27,

notice.

representatives are hereby DIRECTED to appear at

Ist Floor Courtroom in Savannah,

June

further

2017

for

a

hearing

motions in this case:

on

Georgia at

9:00 AM on

following

outstanding

the

Dkt. Nos. 127-29, 131, 138.

The trial

schedule will be resolved at that time.

Defendants'

Mazzeo, dkt.
a

is
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Motion

to

Avoid

Deposition

Dr.

Paul

no. 128, will be further argued and addressed if

need to do so remains at the June 27 hearing.

GRANTED

of

insofar

as

the

deposition

However,

scheduled

for

it

this

afternoon,

June 23, 2017,

is AVOIDED.

party who wants to

depose a person . . . must give reasonable written notice to
every other party."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1).

'"If the notice

is not reasonable,

the deposition may be avoided

Adiqun

Scripts,

959583,

v.

Express

at *5

Noticing a

deposition

unreasonable.

Co.,

No.

10,

2017)

Mar.

five

Kolon Indus.

days
Inc.

the

2:16-CV-39,

v.

.

.

."

2017

WL

(citations omitted).

in advance
E.I.

748 F.3d 160, 173 (4th Cir. 2014)

deposition).
Given

(S.D. Ga.

Inc.,

.

has

been held

DuPont de Nemours &

(upholding barring of

Defendants were given two fewer days than that.
continuance,

there

is

no

reason

to

force

deposition to proceed on so little notice.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of June, 2017.

HON. MlISA GODBEYtWOOD,

JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

the