Charpia et al v. Robinson et al
ORDER AND REASONS denying 100 Renewed Motion to Continue Trial. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/27/2017. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HAL E. CHARPIA, ET AL.
VANDWELL K. ROBINSON, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the defendants’ renewed motion to continue
the trial that is scheduled to begin on July 31, 2017. 1
reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
continue the trial, the defendants complain that last minute
combined with the defendants’ inability to depose the doctors,
discover the information learned during the examinations, and
constitutes prejudice that can be cured by a trial continuance. 2
The Court denied without prejudice the defendants’ first motion
to continue the trial. Although the renewed motion to continue is
scheduled for hearing on July 31, 2017, the plaintiffs have filed
another ground supporting a trial continuance, the
defendants complain that the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction
The defendants submit that a brief trial continuance would allow
the plaintiffs to be examined by their treating physicians as
scheduled, then the defendants “can either depose both physicians,
or at least provide medical records form these examinations to
their experts for review in advance of trial, or both.”
plaintiffs counter that a trial continuance would cause them
hardship, that the defendants have never been prevented from
defendants’ complaint regarding the last minute nature of the
medical examinations has caused no prejudice.
On this record, the
According to counsel for the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs
received Dr. Steck’s three paragraph update from his 7/24/17
immediately provided to defendants who were able to give it to Dr.
Nutik (IME doctor) before his video trial deposition.
The defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Williams, examined
Mr. Freitez on July 26, Dr. Gladden (the treating physician) will
examine him on July 28, and the plaintiffs will receive Dr.
expert failed to comply with a subpoena. This complaint is
more fully briefed in the defendants’ motion in limine, which
will be considered on the morning of trial.
Gladden’s notes and immediately turn them over to the defendants,
which means that Dr. Williams will testify with the benefit of
both his own IME and Dr. Gladden’s update notes.
offer no counter argument. Nothing has changed from when the Court
denied the original motion to continue.
This is a simple rear-end collision case.
continuance ring hollow. The defendants have failed to demonstrate
how they have suffered any prejudice from the plaintiffs’ followup medical appointments in advance of the trial -- they point to
no surprises revealed from these appointments, and their concern
that they would not have Dr. Steck‘s notes prior to their Dr.
William’s IME has proved incorrect.
The renewed motion to continue the trial is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 27, 2017
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?