Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. National Casualty Company

Filing 32

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-1947

NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

SECTION: “G”(2)

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant National Casualty Company’s (“National”) “Motion to
Reconsider Motion for Continuance,”1 wherein National contends that good cause exists to continue
the trial date because: (1) “the discovery needed to prepare this matter for trial is far more involved
than either counsel anticipated at the outset of the case” and “simply cannot be completed before the
currently scheduled trial date,” owing to its recent identification certain issues in this case; (2) a
continuance “would do more to honor the sanctity” of the Court’s docket “than adhering to the
current trial date;” (3) without a continuance, “the parties may be forced to abandon settlement
discussions;” and (4) “adherence to the currently scheduled trial date would deprive it of its right
to prepare and appropriate defense.”2
Plaintiffs have filed a response, in which they aver that they “do not oppose a brief
continuance in this matter,” but cannot join in National’s motion due to: (1) “National’s position that
it is entitled to conduct discovery” on certain issues; and (2) “disagreements over factual assertions
within National’s pleading.”3 National has also moved the Court for leave to file a reply in further

1

Rec. Doc. 20.

2

Rec. Doc. 20-1 at pp. 1; 9–10.

3

Rec. Doc. 25 at p. 1.

support of its motion, in which it disputes whether it is entitled to perform the disputed discovery.4
Finally, Plaintiffs have moved the Court for leave to file a sur-reply, in which Plaintiffs further
dispute whether National is entitled to conduct the disputed discovery.5
Also pending before the Court is an “Unopposed Motion to Continue Discovery and PreTrial Motion Deadlines”6 filed by Plaintiffs, in which Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the pretrial motion deadline by 28 days, to August 19, 2015, and extend the discovery deadline by 17 days,
until August 19, 2015,7 because the current deadlines in effect in this matter “leave insufficient time
to complete the discovery” believed to be necessary to “file motions that provide the Court will a
full and complete picture” of the relevant issues in this case.8 Plaintiffs further aver that they expect
that certain discovery will be subject to motion practice before the Magistrate Judge.9
On June 17, 2015, the parties filed an ex parte “Joint Motion to Continue Trial,”10 requesting
that the Court continue the trial in this matter currently scheduled for September 14, 2015, asserting
that a continuance is necessary because “on May 18, 2015, plaintiffs produced 5,993 pages of
documents,”11 and because “additional discovery likely will be warranted upon completion of the
4

Rec. Doc. 26. The Court will grant this motion in an Order issued separately but signed
contemporaneously with this Order.
5

Rec. Doc. 27-2. The Court will grant this motion in an Order issued separately but signed
contemporaneously with this Order.
6

Rec. Doc. 22.

7

Rec. Doc. 22-1 at pp. 2-3.

8

Id. at p. 2.

9

Id.

10

11

Rec. Doc. 16.
Rec. Doc. 16-1 at 1.

2

review of that information making compliance with the Court’s scheduling order impossible.”12
The Scheduling Order in effect in this matter requires that “[d]epositions for trial use shall be taken
and all discovery shall be completed no later than July 14, 2015.”13 The Court denied the motion on
June 19, 2015, because: (1) plaintiffs produced these documents almost two months before the
deadline for completion of depositions and discovery; (2) the parties modified the discovery deadline
out of “professional courtesy,” causing the delayed production; and because (3) “[t]here are clearly
less disruptive alternatives available to the parties than to continue the trial date and all pre-trial
deadlines.”14
Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Federal Rules “do not recognize a ‘motion for
reconsideration’ in haec verba,”15 it has consistently recognized that such a motion may challenge
a judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), or 60(b).16 When a party
seeks to revise an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims among all of the parties, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) controls:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action
as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.17

12

Id.

13

Rec. Doc. 11 at 2.

14

15

Rec. Doc. 17 at p. 2.
Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).

16

Id. (Rules 59 and 60); Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at
*3–*4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (Vance, C.J.) (Rule 54).
17

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 54(b)

3

Under Rule 54(b), the district court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider,
rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient”18 However, this broad
discretion must be exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and
the resulting burdens and delays.19
The general practice of courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana has been to evaluate Rule
54(b) motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e)
motions to alter or amend a final judgment.20 Such a motion “calls into question the correctness of
a judgment,”21 and courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion.22
In exercising this discretion, courts must carefully balance the interests of justice with the need for
finality.23 Courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana have generally considered four factors in
deciding motions for reconsideration under the Rule 59(e) standard:
(1)

the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact upon which
the judgment is based;

(2)

the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;

(3)

the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; or

18

Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981).

19

See Calpetco 1981 v. Marshall Exploration, Inc., 989 F.2d 1408, 1414–15 (5th Cir. 1993); 18B Charles
A. Wright, et al, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478.1 (2d ed.)
20

See, e.g., Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *3; Rosemond v. AIG Ins., No. 08-1145, 2009 WL 1211020,
at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2009) (Barbier, J.); In re Katrina Canal Breaches, No. 05-4182, 2009 WL 1046016, at *1
(E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2009) (Duval, J.).
21

Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts v. Transtexas Gas Corp. (In re Transtexas Gas Corp.), 303 F.3d 571,
581 (5th Cir. 2002).
22

Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).

23

Id. at 355–56.

4

(4)

the motion is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.24

A motion for reconsideration “‘[is] not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments. . . .’”25 Instead, such motions “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party
to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”26 “It is well
settled that motions for reconsideration should not be used . . . to re-urge matters that have already
been advanced by a party.”27
Reconsideration, therefore, is not to be lightly granted, as “[r]econsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly”28 and the motion must
“clearly establish” that reconsideration is warranted.29 When there exists no independent reason for
reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of
judicial time and resources and should not be granted.30
In its pending motion, National requests reconsideration of the Court’s order denying a
continuance of the trial date. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may

24

See, e.g., Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (citations omitted).

25

Id. (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).

26

See Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).

27

Helena Labs Corp. v. Alpha Scientific Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 538, 539 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (citing
Browning v. Navarro, 894 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1990)).
28

Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79 (citation omitted).

29

Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).

30

Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 481 (M.D. La. 2002);
see also Mata v. Schoch, 337 BR 138, 145 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (refusing reconsideration where no new evidence was
presented); FDIC v. Cage, 810 F.Supp. 745, 747 (S.D. Miss. 1993) (refusing reconsideration where the motion
merely disagreed with the court and did not demonstrate clear error of law or manifest injustice).

5

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”31 Whether to grant or deny a
continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.32 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.”33
As the Court noted in its prior Order, there are clearly less disruptive alternatives available
to the parties than to continue the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines. The Court also noted in its
prior Order that “[i]f an extension of the discovery deadline is required, the parties could request
such relief, and the Court will consider such motion if and when filed.”34 In the instant motion,
National merely expands upon the same arguments already found insufficient to warrant a
continuance of the trial date: that further discovery is required and cannot be timely completed. As
the Court has already noted, there are clearly less disruptive alternatives than to continue the trial
date and all pre-trial deadlines. Therefore, National has not clearly established its entitlement to
reconsideration, and its motion will be denied.35
Also pending before the Court, however, is an ex parte “Unopposed Motion to Continue
Discovery and Pre-Trial Motion Deadlines”36 filed by Plaintiffs, in which Plaintiffs aver that “good

31

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

32

United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.1996).

33

Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000)(internal citations omitted).

34

Rec. Doc. 17 at p. 2.

35

It appears that the parties have attempted to use the instant motion as a vehicle to litigate specific
discovery-related disputes. The Court need not reach these arguments, as National has not clearly established its
entitlement to reconsideration of the Court’s decision regarding a continuance of the trial date.
36

Rec. Doc. 22.

6

cause exists for a brief continuance of the pre-trial deadlines in order to complete the discovery that
will allow the Court to fully analyze the issues presented in this litigation.”37 The Court finds that
good cause exists to continue the discovery deadline. It will therefore grant this pending motion to
this limited extent. However, the parties have not shown good cause to continue any other pre-trial
deadline. Therefore, this pending motion will be denied in all other respects.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Motion for
Continuance”38 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Unopposed Motion to Continue Discovery and PreTrial Motion Deadlines”39 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Unopposed Motion to Continue Discovery and PreTrial Motion Deadlines”40 is GRANTED to the extent that it requests a continuance of the discovery
deadline in this matter. The discovery deadline is extended to July 31, 2015.

37

38

Rec. Doc. 22-1 at p. 1.
Rec. Doc. 20.

39

Rec. Doc. 22.

40

Rec. Doc. 22.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Unopposed Motion to Continue Discovery and PreTrial Motion Deadlines”41 is DENIED in all other respects.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ______ day of July, 2015.
2nd

_________________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

41

Rec. Doc. 22.

8