Blanchard et al v. BP America Production Company et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Compel, Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. (car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHAD BLANCHARD ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-1542

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.

ORDER ON MOTION
APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs)
MOTION:

Defendants’ Motion to Compel and to Continue Deadline for Pretrial
Motions, Record Doc. No. 24

O R D E R E D:

XXX : GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to my previous order,
Record Doc. No. 26, the deadline for filing written opposition, if any, to defendants’
Motion to Compel and to Continue Deadline for Pretrial Motions, Record Doc. No. 24, was
February 28, 2012. No memorandum in opposition to the motion has been received.
Accordingly, this motion is deemed to be unopposed, and, further, it appearing to the court
that the motion has merit only in part, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is determined as
follows.
The motion is granted insofar as it relates to Requests for Production of
Documents Nos. 8, 9, 11, 20, 21, 22 and 23. IT IS ORDERED that no later than March
6, 2012, plaintiff must provide defendants with new written responses to these requests,
signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), clearly stating either that all responsive
materials have been produced or that no responsive materials are in plaintiff’s possession,
custody or control, and plaintiff must actually produce to defendant all responsive
materials, if any.
The motion is denied insofar as it seeks a continuance of the motion filing
deadline. A Rule 16 order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (emphasis added). In determining “good cause” in
connection with a Rule 16 scheduling order of the type that was entered in this case, the
court must weigh the following factors: (1) the explanation for the failure to comply,
(2) the importance of the matters that are the subject of the order, (3) potential prejudice

in allowing the requested action and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such
prejudice. Nunez v. United States Postal Serv., 298 F. App’x 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2008)
(district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to designate experts beyond the
scheduling order deadline); Campbell v. Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc., 138 F.3d 996,
1000-01 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court abused discretion in allowing late-designated
expert to testify at trial without having considered the four factors).
Weighing these factors in the instant case militates against a finding of good cause.
The explanation for the request for an extension is not persuasive, and the subject of the
request for extension is not important. Defendant asserts that the extension is being sought
so that defendant may file a motion for summary judgment on grounds “that the plaintiff
has no evidence to support certain key elements of his case.” Record Doc. No. 24-25 at p.1.
This kind of motion for summary judgment may be filed without the materials requested
by defendant. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). While some prejudice
to the parties may result in continuing motion practice to a time when trial preparation
should also be occurring, it is the court that would be most prejudiced by the request for
extension, since it would be impossible to determine any summary judgment motion filed
by the proposed new deadline before the scheduled trial. It appears that the kind of motion
defendant contemplates could be as easily and efficiently pursued at the conclusion of
plaintiff’s case-in-chief at trial as on the eve of trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Finally, a
continuance of the April 2, 2012 trial date is not available under these circumstances. For
these reasons, the request for extension of the motion deadline is denied.
The parties are directed to complete their discovery as agreed upon (since my
discovery deadline has already lapsed) as soon as possible so that they may promptly begin
trial preparation.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this

29th

day of February, 2012.

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2