Bailey v. Johnson et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's 9 Order denying Plaintiff's requested extension is VACATED and the Scheduling Order is modified. Completing fact discovery and filing related motions due 4/30/2015. All other deadlines established by the Court's 7 Scheduling Order remain the same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 03/03/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TASHANNA N. BAILEY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-175-JJB-RLB

ROBERT K. JOHNSON AND
MAIDEN REINSURANCE CO.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (R. Doc. 10) the Court’s previous
denial (R. Doc. 9) of her Motion for Extension of Time (R. Doc. 8). In her Motion for
Extension, Plaintiff asked the Court to extend the January 30, 2015 discovery deadline by 90
days. (R. Doc. 8 at 1). In support of the requested extension, Plaintiff explained that her
“counsel ha[d] been unable to complete discovery” because of “numerous scheduling issues and
previously set matters.” (R. Doc. 8 at 1). Defendants did not oppose the Motion for Extension or
the relief requested. (R. Doc. 8 at 1).
The Court originally denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension because it gave “no specific
information regarding the discovery that has already been completed, what additional discovery
remains, or why, despite the exercise of due diligence, that could not have been completed within
the existing timeframe.” (R. Doc. 9 at 2). Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its denial
and offers additional information not included in her Motion for Extension.
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff explains that her counsel could not meet the
January 30, 2015 discovery deadline, despite due diligence, because: (1) he had to leave town for
a month following the illness and death of a family member; (2) a member of his support staff

was unexpectedly absent for 2 months after going into premature labor; and (3) he was preparing
for 4 trials. (R. Doc. 10-1 at 1). Plaintiff further advises that she does not seek an extension of
any other Scheduling Order deadlines.
As an initial matter, the Court recognizes that all counsel must balance busy work
schedules, but that alone does not support a finding of good cause. See Draper v. KK Ford, LP,
196 F. App’x 264, 265 (5th Cir. 2006). This is particularly true where the scheduling conflicts
described were “previously set matters” that should have been accounted for by counsel in
diligently pursuing discovery. 1 At the same time, the Court is sympathetic to the fact that certain
events cannot be planned for and must take precedent over other obligations — especially those
involving the loss of a family member or a medical emergency.
Considering the circumstances and the lack of prejudice to Defendants, as indicated by
their consent to the extension, the Court finds there is good cause to extend the fact discovery
deadline for 90 days. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 10) is
GRANTED. The Court’s previous Order (R. Doc. 9) denying Plaintiff’s requested extension is
VACATED and the Scheduling Order is modified as follows:
Completing fact discovery and filing related motions:

April 30, 2015.

The parties are advised that all other deadlines established by the Court’s Scheduling Order (R.
Doc. 7) remain the same.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 3, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1

The Court, however, remains unaware of the extent of counsel’s diligence, as Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration again does not explain the discovery already conducted.