Norswearthy v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDERED that the parties' 43 Joint Motion to Continue Expert Report Deadlines & Notice Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines is GRANTED. The parties must contact the Court's case manager within fou rteen days of this order to select new dates for trial and related pretrial deadlines. FURTHER ORDERED that BP Defendants' 40 Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Lack of Causation Evidence,and Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines are MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 4/20/2022. (jls)

Case 2:17-cv-03590-NJB-JVM Document 44 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHESTER LEE NORSWEARTHY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-3590

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. et al.

SECTION: “G”

ORDER
Before the Court are three motions: (1) a “Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s
Lack of Causation Evidence” filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America
Production Co., and BP PLC’s (collectively, “BP Defendants”);1 (2) a “Motion to Continue Trial
and Pre-Trial Deadlines” filed by Plaintiff Chester Lee Norswearthy (“Plaintiff”);2 and (3) the
parties’ “Joint Motion to Continue Expert Report Deadlines & Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion
to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines.” 3 Plaintiff’s case is one of over 500 BP Oil Spill
Response Clean-up Worker cases currently pending in this district. BP Defendants moved for
summary judgment because Plaintiff had not produced any expert testimony to prove that the
alleged exposure to toxic chemicals caused Plaintiff’s injuries. 4 Plaintiff opposed that motion,
noting that although the expert reports were past due as a result of the extraordinary volume of
expert reports that needed to be prepared, they have now been completed and exchanged.5 Plaintiff

1

Rec. Doc. 40.

2

Rec. Doc. 42.

3

Rec. Doc. 43.

4

Rec. Doc. 40-1.

5

Rec. Doc. 41.

Case 2:17-cv-03590-NJB-JVM Document 44 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 4

then moved to continue the trial in this matter and all pre-trial deadlines because counsel for
Plaintiff is working on “hundreds of cases simultaneously,” and the “limited number of experts
available and limited resources of counsel” makes the workload untenable. 6
After Plaintiff moved to continue trial, the parties filed the “Joint Motion to Continue
Expert Report Deadlines & Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial
Deadlines.”7 In the motion, the parties state that they “have reached a resolution of Plaintiff’s
motion to continue trial date and pre-trial deadlines.” 8 The parties assert that they have agreed to
an extension of deadlines for Plaintiff’s case and for the various other BP cases pending in this
district.9 The parties agree to extend the expert report deadline to May 31, 2022. 10 The parties
further note that the instant motion moots both Plaintiff’s motion to continue, and BP Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. 11 The parties request a scheduling conference with the Court to
“discuss adjusting the other deadlines, including the trial date.” 12
Federal district courts have the inherent power to enforce their scheduling orders, 13 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for

6

Rec. Doc. 42-1 at 7–8.

7

Rec. Doc. 43.

8

Id. at 1.

9

Id.

10

Id.

11

Id. at 2.

12

Id.

13

See Flaska v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 886 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1968) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).

Case 2:17-cv-03590-NJB-JVM Document 44 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 4

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 14 Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the
sound discretion of the trial court.15 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.”16 Given that the Court has
already granted motions to continue trial and related pretrial deadlines in other BP Oil Spill cases
pending before this Section, in the interest of fairness, the Court grants the parties’ motion to
extend deadlines. 17 As a result, BP Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s
motion to continue trial are moot. Although the parties requested that Plaintiff’s expert deadline
be extended to May 31, 2022 and Defendants’ expert deadline be extended to June 30, 2022, the
Court will instead reset these deadlines to correspond to the new trial date. Accordingly,

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Rec. Doc. 43.

Case 2:17-cv-03590-NJB-JVM Document 44 Filed 04/21/22 Page 4 of 4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ “Joint Motion to Continue Expert Report
Deadlines & Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines” 18 is
GRANTED. The parties must contact the Court’s case manager within fourteen days of this order
to select new dates for trial and related pretrial deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BP Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment Due
to Plaintiff’s Lack of Causation Evidence,” 19 and Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue Trial and PreTrial Deadlines” 20 are MOOT.

20th

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of April, 2022.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

Id.

19

Rec. Doc. 40.

20

Rec Doc. 42.