Williams v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company

Filing 68

SUPPLEMENTAL RULING on 58 Motion for for Extension of Dispositive and/or Duabert Motion Deadline. The defendant's motions are granted. The Amended Scheduling Order previously issued in each case will be further amended to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions to 30 days after the district judge rules in each case on the plaintiff's objections to the discovery ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/27/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEO SCOTT, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-741-SDD-SCR
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY
and
ALLEN WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-382-JWD-SCR
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY
and
LEO SCOTT, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-391-JWD-SCR
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY

SUPPLEMENTAL
RULING ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
DISPOSITIVE AND/OR DAUBERT MOTION DEADLINE
Again

before

the

court

are

the

three

motions

filed

by

defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company seeking to extend the
September 30, 2015 deadline for filing dispositive and/or Daubert
motions, one filed in each case: record document number 64 in CV
13-741-SDD-SCR, record document number 58 in CV 14-382-JWD-SCR, and
record document number 48 in CV 14-391-JWD-SCR.

As explained in

the previous Ruling on Motion for Extension of Dispositive and/or

Daubert Motion Deadline issued in each case,1 the motions are
slightly different but the factual basis for each is essentially
the same.

That ruling granted interim relief only so that each

plaintiff would have an opportunity to file an opposition or other
response to the motion.

The Amended Scheduling Order previously

issued in each case was amended to extend the deadline to file
dispositive motions to October 30, 2015.

As to CV 13-741, the

deadline to file Daubert motions was extended to 30 days after the
district judge rules on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of and
Objections

to

Magistrate

Judge’s

Ruling

on

Motion

to

Compel

Discovery and Motion to Stay Ruling.2
No plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendant’s motion to
extend the dispositive/Daubert motion filing deadline.
The motions and the record of each case have been reviewed
again; the motions which were pending before the district judge in
each case when the previous ruling was issue are still pending.
The rulings on those motions may result in the parties being
required or permitted to engage in additional discovery.

As noted

in the previous ruling, it is a waste of time and money to file a
summary judgment motion when the opponent is pressing an objection
to the denial of a motion to compel discovery and indicates that he

1

CV 13-741, record document number 66; CV 14-382, record
document number 59; CV 14-391, record document number 49.
2

CV 13-741, record document number 63.
2

will seek also relief under Rule 56(d) in response to a summary
judgment motion.
Accordingly, the defendant’s motions are granted. The Amended
Scheduling Order previously issued in each case will be further
amended to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions to 30
days after the district judge rules in each case on the plaintiff’s
objections to the discovery ruling.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 27, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3