Michel v. Ford Motor Company, et al

Filing 112

ORDER AND REASONS denying #80 Motion to Strike, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/27/2018. (am) Modified text on 12/27/2018 (am).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VICTOR MICHEL, ET AL.
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 18-4738

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants Cummins’s and Ford’s motion to strike
plaintiff’s oppositions to their motions in limine and motion for summary
judgment, and to strike plaintiffs’ motion to amend the Court’s scheduling
order. 1 The Court denies the motion because plaintiffs have demonstrated
excusable neglect, and because the motion to amend the Court’s scheduling
order was timely.
Under the Court’s scheduling order, the parties were required to
submit all dispositive motions in time for hearing on December 5, 2018. 2 On
November 20, 2018, defendants timely filed four expert motions in limine
and a motion for summary judgment. 3 Under Local Rule 7.5, plaintiffs’

1
2
3

R. Doc. 80.
R. Doc. 53.
R. Doc. 66; R. Doc. 67; R. Doc. 68; R. Doc. 69; R. Doc. 70.

responses to these motions were due on November 27, 2018. Plaintiffs filed
their responses on November 28, 2018, one day late.
Late oppositions are evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)’s “excusable neglect” standard. See Vasudevan v. Adm’rs of Tulane
Educ. Fund, 706 F. App’x 147, 151 (5th Cir. 2017); Adams v. Travelers Indem.
Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161 (5th Cir. 2006). Courts consider the following
factors in evaluating excusable neglect: “the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], the length of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial
proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good
faith.” Adams, 465 F.3d at 162 n.8 (quoting Farina v. Mission Inv. Trust,
615 F.2d 1068, 1076 (5th Cir. 1980)). Here, plaintiffs filed their responses
only one day late, and proceedings were not delayed. Because defendants
timely filed their replies and did not request a one-day continuance of their
deadline, they do not appear to have been prejudiced. There is no evidence
of bad faith. Plaintiffs have therefore demonstrated excusable neglect.
Next, plaintiffs’ motion to amend the Court’s scheduling order was not
filed late, because the December 5 deadline only applied to dispositive
motions and to motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert
testimony. A motion to amend a scheduling order is neither a dispositive
2

motion nor a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of expert
testimony. Plaintiffs were therefore free to file the motion to amend on
November 30, and the Court will consider the motion on the merits in its
order ruling on defendants’ motions in limine.

I.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’

responses and their motion to amend the Court’s scheduling order is
DENIED.

27th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2018.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3