Voisin et al v. Armacell, LLC et al

Filing 56

ORDER: The 55 Joint Motion for Reconsideration, which the court deems to be a joint motion for extension of the non-expert discovery deadline, is GRANTED.The deadline to complete all discovery except experts, including the filing of any related discovery motions, is extended to September 30, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 7/27/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CARROL J. VOISIN, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO.: 13-438-BAJ-RLB

ARMACELL, LLC, ET AL.

ORDER
Before the court is a Joint Motion for Reconsideration of Armacell LLC’s (“Armacell”)
Motion to Continue Factual Discovery Deadline (R. Doc. 55) filed on July 22, 2015. The motion
seeks reconsideration of the court’s order (R. Doc. 53) denying Armacell’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Factual Discovery Deadline (R. Doc. 52). The court will construe the instant motion as
independently seeking an extension of the non-expert discovery deadline.
The plaintiffs originally filed this action in state court alleging that, as a result of Mr.
Voison’s employment, he was exposure to certain chemicals found in products manufactured by
Armacell and the other defendants that ultimately caused him to develop lymphoma. (R. Doc. 18 at 4-5). Armacell and the other defendants removed this action on July 3, 2013. (R. Doc. 1).
On October 16, 2013, the court entered a Scheduling Order (R. Doc. 19) based upon
deadlines requested by the parties in a Joint Status Report (R. Doc. 18). As requested by the
parties, the deadline for completing non-expert discovery was set for September 30, 2014. Trial
was set to begin on November 9, 2015.
On April 28, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to extend deadlines. (R. Doc. 22). In
support of that motion, the parties represented that they had worked diligently in completing
discovery. The parties further represented that in light of the health of the plaintiffs, Mr.

Voison’s deposition had not been completed. The parties further represented that the plaintiffs
would be adding two additional defendants and, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the
deposition of Mr. Voison should not be taken until all new parties were represented by counsel.
The court granted the motion and provided a 90-day extension of discovery deadlines. (R. Doc.
24).
On May 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Supplemental and Amended Complaint
naming the two new defendants. (R. Doc. 26). After those new defendants had an opportunity to
make an appearance, the parties submitted another Joint Status Report. (R. Doc. 40). On August
21, 2014, the court issued a new Scheduling Order providing that the deadline to complete nonexpert discovery was reset, as requested by the parties, for July 31, 2015. (R. Doc. 43). The trial
has been reset to begin on September 19, 2016.
On July 10, 2015 Armacell filed a motion seeking an additional 60-day extension of the
deadline to complete non-expert discovery. (R. Doc. 52). Armacell represented that its motion
was unopposed and all “parties agree that additional time is needed to conduct factual discovery
in this matter.” (R. Doc. 52 at 1). The court denied the motion because Armacell failed to
provide any basis supporting a finding that the “good cause” requirement of Rule 16(b)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was satisfied. (R. Doc. 53).
On July 22, 2015, the parties filed the instant joint motion seeking the same discovery
extension requested in the denied motion filed by Armacell. (R. Doc. 55). In support of their
motion, the parties provided an 8-page memorandum in support of a finding of good cause. (R.
Doc. 55-1).
Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the modification of a
scheduling order deadline upon a showing of good cause and with the judge’s consent. The Fifth

2

Circuit has explained that a party is required “to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be
met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” Marathon Fin. Ins. Inc., RRG v.
Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 458, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting S&W Enters., LLC v. Southtrust
Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). The August 21, 2014 Scheduling Order
informed the parties that “[j]oint, agreed or unopposed motions to extend scheduling order
deadlines will not be granted automatically” and that “[e]xtensions of deadlines governing
discovery must be supported with information describing the discovery already completed, what
necessary discovery remains, the parties’ efforts to complete the remaining discovery by the
deadline, and any additional information showing that the parties have diligently pursued their
discovery.” (R. Doc. 43 at 3).
In support of a finding of good cause, the parties indicate that they have been unable to
complete non-expert discovery within the current deadlines despite their diligence. The parties
represent that discovery has been complicated because of Carrol J. Voison, Jr.’s failing health,
limited stamina, and hospitalization. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 2). The parties indicate that Mr. Voison
has been deposed on August 23, 2013; March 18, 2014; September 26, 2014; November 18,
2014; and December 17, 2014 for the purpose of discovery and trial. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 2). The
parties further indicate that Plaintiffs have propounded four sets of interrogatories and requests
for production on the Defendants, and the Defendants have worked together to propound one set
of “master discovery” on the Plaintiffs in June of 2015. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 2-3). The parties
further indicate that depositions of Mr. Voison’s co-workers have been taken, and the parties
have worked together to schedule the corporate depositions of the Defendants, the plaintiff
Earline Voison, and non-party Insulation Sales and Services. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 2-4). The parties
indicate that the deposition of Earline Voison has been difficult to schedule in light of her own

3

illness and hospitalization, and it has taken significant time for the defendants to identify and
prepare corporate witnesses in light of the fact that the events germane to the case occurred
between 20-25 years ago. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 3-4). The parties further indicate that the 60-day
extension sought will not impact other deadlines in this action. (R. Doc. 55-1 at 5).
In light of the foregoing, the court finds that the parties have established good cause for a
modification of the court’s scheduling order and the extension sought.
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 55), which the
court deems to be a joint motion for extension of the non-expert discovery deadline, is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to complete all discovery except
experts, including the filing of any related discovery motions, is extended to September 30,
2015.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 27, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4