Jones v. Phil Guilbeau Offshore, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER AND REASONS granting 54 MOTION to Continue Trial filed by Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Phil Guilbeau Offshore, Inc., Houston Casualty Company, Chapman Consulting, Inc., Certain Underwriters and Companies at Lloyd's, London, BIS Salamis, Inc. Scheduling Conference set for 9/11/2014 11:00 AM before courtroom deputy by telephone. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/22/14.(jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN PRESTON JONES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-5078

PHIL GUILBEAU OFFSHORE, INC

SECTION: R(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Phil Guilbeau Offshore, Inc.'s
motion to continue the trial date set for December 1, 2014.1

For

the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to
continue trial.

I.

BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action arising under Section 33 of

the Jones Act.

46 U.S.C. § 688.

Plaintiff alleges that he

suffered a permanent injury to his left foot while working on the
defendant's vessel.2
Trial in this matter is currently set for December 1, 2014.
Defendant argues that a continuance is necessary because there is
no indication that plaintiff will reach maximum medical improvement
(MMI) until after the current trial date.3
1

R. Doc. 16.

2

R. Doc. 1 at 2.

3

R. Doc. 54-1 at 1-2.

Plaintiff opposes the

motion to continue, arguing that plaintiff's primary doctor, Dr.
Reiss Plauche, has represented that plaintiff will reach MMI
shortly before the December 1, 2014 trial date.4

II.

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that "[a]

schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's
consent."

Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(b)(4).

Whether

to

grant

or

deny

a

continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In
deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court's “judgment
range is exceedingly wide,” for it “must consider not only the
facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on
counsel's time and the court's.” Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701,
736 (5th Cir. 2000)(internal citations omitted).
Here, defendant argues that because plaintiff will not reach
MMI until after trial, defendant will not be able to engage experts
to counter the testimony of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr.
Plauche.

In its Opposition, plaintiff contends that Dr. Plauche

has represented that plaintiff will reach MMI within six months of
the amputation surgery.
May 23, 2014.5

Dr. Plauche amputated plaintiff's foot on

Thus, according to plaintiff's expert, plaintiff

4

R. Doc. 58 at 2.

5

Id. at 1.
2

will not reach MMI until approximately November 23, 2014.

Although the parties do not agree on when exactly plaintiff
will reach MMI, plaintiff does concede that Dr. Plauche has
estimated that plaintiff will not reach MMI until shortly before
trial.

Indeed, plaintiff's next follow up examination with Dr.

Plauche isn't until November 5, 2014.6

The Court finds that

allowing the trial to continue on the scheduled date will prejudice
the defendant's ability to proffer countervailing expert testimony
and may require the jury to speculate as to plaintiff's future
damages and/or medical expenses. See Simmons v. Blake Workover &
Drilling Co., CIV. A. No. 02-2060, 2003 WL 21500546, at *2 (E.D.
La.

June

25,

2003)

("As

a

result

of

Plaintiff's

medical

uncertainty, the Court . . . hereby GRANTS the Plaintiff's Motion
to Continue.").
The Court finds that the plaintiff's medical uncertainty
constitutes

good

cause

to

justify

the

continuance

of

trial.

Accordingly, the Court orders the pretrial conference and trial
continued.

See Wells v. Rushing, 755 F.2d 376, 380 (5th Cir.

1985).

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to continue
6

R. Doc. 54-1 at 1.
3

trial is GRANTED.
The Court orders the parties to participate in a telephone
scheduling conference with the Court's case manager on September
11, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of scheduling new trial and
pre-trial conference dates.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of August, 2014.
_____________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4