Charpia et al v. Robinson et al

Filing 111

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.

CIVIL ACTION

V.

NO. 16-15404

VANDWELL K. ROBINSON, ET AL.

SECTION F

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

For the

reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Like

they

did

when

they

filed

their

original

motion

to

continue the trial, the defendants complain that last minute
examinations

of

the

plaintiffs

by

their

treating

physicians,

combined with the defendants’ inability to depose the doctors,
discover the information learned during the examinations, and
share

that

information

with

the

defendants’

medical

experts

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
their opposition.
2 Offering
another ground supporting a trial continuance, the
defendants complain that the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction
1
1

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.”

The

plaintiffs counter that a trial continuance would cause them
hardship, that the defendants have never been prevented from
deposing

the

plaintiffs’

treating

physicians,

and

that

the

defendants’ complaint regarding the last minute nature of the
medical examinations has caused no prejudice.

On this record, the

Court agrees.
According to counsel for the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs
received Dr. Steck’s three paragraph update from his 7/24/17
examination

of

Mr.

Charpia

early

on

July

25,

2017,

“it

was

immediately provided to defendants who were able to give it to Dr.
Nutik (IME doctor) before his video trial deposition.

He was

successfully

latest

opinions.”

examined

and

testified

on

Dr.

Steck’s

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.
2

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.

The defendants

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.
arguments

advanced

in

support

of

their

The defendants’

renewed

motion

for

a

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

3