Mendy et al v. Omni Bancshare, Inc et al

Filing 55

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that dft's 51 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Quash is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that dft's 50 Motion to Quash is GRANTED and pla's discovery requests are hereby QUASHED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 6/17/2011. (rll, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES ALBERT MENDY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO:

OMNI BANCSHARES, INC., ET AL.

SECTION: "S" (4)

09-6286

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Hearing on Motion to Quash
Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Notice of Deposition, and Notice of Inspection (R. Doc.
51) is hereby GRANTED. The underlying motion will be considered on the briefs
Before the Court is a Motion to Quash Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Notice
of Deposition, and Request to Inspect (R. Doc. 50) filed by the Defendant, Omni Bancshares, Inc.
seeking an Order quashing the Plaintiff’s first set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of
Documents, and a Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition and Notice of Intent and Request for Inspection
According to the Scheduling Order, the deadline to complete discovery was May 16, 2011. (R.
Doc. 33, p.; 2.) The Scheduling Order provides that “[d]eadlines, or cut-off dates fixed herein may
only be extended upon timely application and upon a showing of good cause.” Id. at 3.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order may only be modified for good
cause shown and with the Judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b)(4). In determining whether a party
has provided good cause to seek discovery beyond the deadline set in the Scheduling Order, Courts
may examine four factors: “(1) the explanation for the untimely conduct; (2) the importance of the

requested untimely action; (3) the potential prejudice in allowing the untimely conduct; and (4) the
availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Huey v. Super Fresh/Sav-A-Center, Inc., No. 071169, 2008 WL 2633767, at *1 (E.D. La. June 25, 2008) (citing S & W Enters., LLC v. S. Trust Bank
of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). “The good cause standard requires the party seeking
relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing
the extension.” S & W Enters., LLC, 315 F.3d at 535 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Plaintiff did not serve his interrogatories until May 16, 2011, the last day to complete
discovery under the Scheduling Order. His requests for production of documents was not served until
May 17, 2011. His Notice of Inspection and Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition was not served until June
1, 2011. The Plaintiff’s discovery requests are untimely.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Houston Casualty Company’s Motion to Quash Interrogatories,
Requests for Production, Notice of Deposition, and Request to Inspect (R. Doc. 50) is hereby

GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s discovery requests are hereby QUASHED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of June, 2011.

_______________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2