Jackson et al v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDERED that 61 Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative, to Stay Non-Party Subpoenas is hereby GRANTED, and Defendants six non-party subpoenas are hereby QUASHED.Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 1/4/2012. (clm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHAUN JACKSON, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-2843

WILSON WELDING SERVICE, INC.

SECTION: “S” (4)
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative, to Stay Non-Party
Subpoenas (R Doc. 61) filed by Plaintiffs Shaun Jackson andJackson and Wilson
filed by filed by Plaintiffs Shaun Christopher Christopher Wilson
(“Plaintiffs”), seeking an order quashing, or in the alternative, staying the proposed non-party
subpoenas filed by Defendant Wilson Welding Service, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant opposes the
motion. (R Doc. 76.) The motion was heard on the briefs without oral argument on November 30,
2011.
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”). Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant discriminated and retaliated against them on the basis of their race. (R. Doc. 1, ¶ IV. 8.)
Plaintiffs are African-American male welders who were hired by the Defendant to work on a rig
refurbishing project. (R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ IV. 4-5, 11.) During the course of their employment, Plaintiffs
allege, inter alia, Defendant (1) required Plaintiffs to sleep in racially segregated sleeping quarters
without air conditioning; (2) permitted white employees to refer to Plaintiffs as “boy” and “nigger”

and tell racist jokes; (3) permitted white employees to write racially offensive language in common
worksite areas; (4) retaliated against Plaintiffs for reporting Defendant’s discriminatory conduct; and
(5) terminated Plaintiffs without cause. (R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15-17, 22-23, 37.) Plaintiffs seek back-pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. (R. Doc. 1, ¶ 46.)
As to the instant motion, Plaintiffs’ seek an order from this Court quashing, or in the
alternative, staying the six non-party subpoenas noticed by Defendant on November 7, 2011.
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed non-party subpoenas are untimely. Defendant opposes the motion.
According to the Scheduling Order, the deadline to complete discovery was November 7,
2011. (R. Doc. 25, p. 1.) The Scheduling Order states that “deadlines . . . fixed herein may only be
extended by the Court upon timely motion filed in compliance with the Plan and Local Rules and
upon showing of good cause.” (R. Doc. 25, p. 3.) The trial is scheduled to commence on January
23, 2012.
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 in this Circuit consider 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. 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).

2

Here, Defendant did not file the Notice of Issuance of Subpoenas for Documents and issue
the subpoenas until November 7, 2011 - the deadline by which all discovery was to be completed.
(R. Doc. 61-1.) The subpoenas required the non-parties to produce documents by November 21,
2011 - fourteen (14) days after the discovery deadline. Further, Defendant did not timely apply for
an extension of the discovery deadline or attempt to demonstrate good cause, as required by the
Scheduling Order. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion must be granted.
II.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative, to Stay

Non-Party Subpoenas (R Doc. 61) is hereby GRANTED, and Defendant’s six non-party
subpoenas are hereby QUASHED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of January 2012.

KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3