Hamilton et al v. Ochsner Health Systems, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER & REASONS re plas' 27 Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony by Jane Eason: for the reasons stated, plas' Motion in Limine is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/11/2012. (rll, ) Modified on 12/11/2012 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CURTIS HAMILTON, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-1398

OCHSNER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

SECTION: “G”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Curtis Hamilton and Rosa Hamilton’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion in
Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By Jane Eason, PT,1 filed on December 7, 2012. Jane
Eason is a proposed expert witness for Defendant Ochsner Health Systems, Inc. (“Oschner”) listed
as a “will call” witness in the proposed pre-trial order.2 However, a scheduling order was issued in
this matter on August 9, 2012 and states that, “Motions in limine regarding the admissibility of
expert testimony shall be filed and served in sufficient time to permit hearing thereon no later than
NOVEMBER 21, 2012.”3
“A schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”4A district
court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion as untimely when the movant never
requested leave to amend the scheduling order deadlines nor provides an explanation as to why the
motion was untimely filed.5 Here, Plaintiffs have never requested a modification of the deadline to
file motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and, moreover, have not even

1

Rec. Doc. 27.

2

See Rec. Doc. 26 at p. 14.

3

Rec. Doc. 7 at p. 2 (emphasis in original).

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

5

Argo v. Woods, 399 Fed. App’x. 1, 3 (5th Cir. 2010).

acknowledged that the pending motion is untimely. Because of the late filing, the submission date
for this motion is January 7, 2013 – the day trial is set to commence. Therefore, the Court will deny
the pending motion as untimely.6 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By
Jane Eason, PT7 is DENIED.

11th
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ________ day of December, 2012.

_________________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Id. (citing Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. D.I.C., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 252, 253-54 (S.D. Tex. 1984) (denying a motion
filed after the cut-off date because “[t]he Defendant offers the court no explanation or showing of ‘good cause’ why on
the eve of trial the motion should be considered.”)).
7

Rec. Doc. 27.

2