Simmons v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC v. Simmons

Filing 33

ORDER AND REASONS granting MOTION 26 to Continue Trial filed by Jordan Simmons. The Court orders the pretrial conference and trial continued. The Court further orders the parties to complete all outstanding discovery by April 25, 2016.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 3/14/16.(jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JORDAN SIMMONS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-1124

GALLIANO MARINE SERVICE, LLC

SECTION: R(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Jordan Simmons's motion to continue the
trial date set for March 28, 2016.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants
the motion.

I.

INTRODUCTION
This is a Jones Act personal injury action, in which plaintiff alleges that

he suffered severe shoulder injuries while working on defendant's vessel. Trial
in this matter is currently set for March 28, 2016. Plaintiff argues that a
continuance is necessary because both parties are still conducting discovery

1

R. Doc. 26.

and plaintiff's counsel has a number of unavoidable scheduling conflicts.2
Defendant opposes the motion.3

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, plaintiff has established good cause to justify a continuance of
trial. Plaintiff asserts that discovery in this case is still ongoing. According to
plaintiff, defendant took the deposition of a witness, Dr. Larkin, on February
19, three days after the February 16 discovery deadline. Defendant also
noticed the deposition of plaintiff's treating physician for March 22, six days
2

Id.

3

R. Doc. 29.
2

before the current trial date, while plaintiff recently requested to depose a
witness for the defense. Plaintiff also asserts that his counsel has several
unavoidable scheduling conflicts in late March and early April.
For these reasons, the Court orders the pretrial conference and trial
continued. The Court further orders the parties to complete all outstanding
discovery by April 25, 2016.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to
continue trial. The Court ORDERS the parties to contact the Court's case
manager to schedule new trial and pre-trial conference dates. The Court
further ORDERS that all outstanding discovery shall be completed by April 25,
2016.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of March, 2016.
14th

_____________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3