Cormier v. Edwards et al

Filing 67

RULING denying 61 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 61 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 05/31/2018. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD HENDERSON (DOC # 109504)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

15-804-SDD-EWD

ROBERT TANNER, WARDEN, ET AL.
Consolidated for discovery purposes only with
TONY CORMIER (DOC # 278001)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

17-241-SDD-EWD

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND CONSOLIDATE DOUGHTY’S
CASE FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES
Before the court is a Motion to Extend Deadlines and Consolidate Doughty’s Case for
Discovery Purposes Only (the “Motion to Extend and Consolidate”)1 filed by plaintiffs in three
separate actions: (1) Richard Henderson, plaintiff in Civil Action No. 15-804-SDD-EWD; (2)
Tony J. Cormier, plaintiff in Civil Action No. 17-241-SDD-EWD; and (3) Levell Doughty,
plaintiff in Civil Action No. 17-1377-JWD-EWD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Defendants in the
Cormier and Henderson actions have filed an opposition.2 For the reasons set forth herein, the
Motion to Extend and Consolidate is DENIED.
I.

Background
On June 1, 2017, the suits of Richard Henderson v. Robert Tanner, Raman Singh, Preety

Singh, and Elizabeth Britton, United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, No. 15-

1

17-cv-241, R. Doc. 61. On June 1, 2017, the Henderson and Cormier cases were consolidated for discovery purposes
only. Although the instant Motion to Extend and Consolidate was only filed in the Cormier matter, No. 17-cv-241,
because these two cases were consolidated for discovery purposes, the undersigned considers the request for extension
to apply equally to both the Cormier and Henderson matters.
2

17-cv-241, R. Doc. 66.

1

804-SDD-EWD (the “Henderson Suit”) and Tony Cormier v. John Bel Edwards, James LeBlanc,
Tim Hooper, Preety Singh, Raman Singh, and Elizabeth Britton, United States District Court,
Middle District of Louisiana, No. 17-241-SDD-EWD (the “Cormier Suit”) were consolidated for
discovery purposes only.3 Plaintiffs in both the Henderson and Cormier Suits allege that the
various defendants failed to adequately treat hepatitis C infections and denied Plaintiffs
appropriate medical care.4 A scheduling order was issued in both the Henderson and Cormier
Suits setting a fact discovery deadline of May 18, 2018; an expert discovery deadline of October
5, 2018; and a November 9, 2018 deadline to file dispositive or Daubert motions.5 Thereafter, the
District Judge issued a separate order setting a jury trial in both the Henderson and Cormier Suits
on August 12, 2019.6
On October 24, 2017, Mr. Levell Doughty filed suit, Levell H. Doughty v. James LeBlanc,
individually; Dr. Raman Singh, individually; Dr. Preety Singh, individually; Nurse Wanda Dupuy,
individually; Nurse Elizabeth Britton, individually, United States District Court, Middle District
of Louisiana, No. 17-1377-JWD-EWD (the “Doughty Suit”), likewise alleging defendants denied
him appropriate medical care and treatment related to his hepatitis C infection. The current
scheduling order in the Doughty Suit sets a fact discovery deadline of November 30, 2018; an
expert discovery deadline of April 5, 2019; a July 3, 2019 deadline to file dispositive and Daubert
motions, and a 5-day jury trial beginning January 13, 2020.7

3

15-804, R. Doc. 99; 17-241, R. Doc. 17.

15-804, R. Doc. 36 (Second Amended Complaint); 17-241, R. Doc. 1. Mr. Henderson’s and Mr. Cormier’s operative
complaints were filed while each was still proceeding pro se. On June 1, 2017, Mr. Henderson’s and Mr. Cormier’s
current counsel – Joseph Long, Carmen Hebert, and J.R. Whaley enrolled. 15-804, R. Doc. 97; 17-241, R. Doc. 16.
4

5

15-804, R. Doc. 112; 17-241, R. Doc. 50.

6

15-804, R. Doc. 120; 17-241, R. Doc. 64.

7

17-1377, R. Doc. 19.

2

By the instant Motion to Extend and Consolidate, Plaintiffs seek to extend the deadlines
currently in place in the Henderson and Cormier Suits to match those in place in the Doughty Suit,
and to consolidate the Doughty Suit with the Henderson and Cormier Suits for purposes of
discovery.8 Plaintiffs contend that “[t]hese deadlines would be suitable for all three plaintiffs, to
keep discovery deadlines consistent for all three Hepatitis C plaintiffs in the Middle District.”9
Plaintiffs further assert that good cause exists to extend the current deadlines in the Henderson and
Cormier Suits “due to the extreme measures Defendants have used to thwart litigation, intimidate
and bully the plaintiff’s attorneys on this case, run out the clock on discovery, and use frivolous
and dilatory tactics to slow litigation, frustrate the plaintiffs, evade service and send a message to
others not to sue the Department of Corrections….”10

Plaintiffs specifically cite repeated

unsuccessful attempts to depose one of the defendants, Nurse Britton, and contend that “[w]ithout
the timely production of medical records and important witness information from Nurse Britton,
plaintiff cannot move forward on the litigation to ask for other discovery and schedule other
depositions.”11
In opposition to the Motion to Extend and Consolidate, defendants point out that following
the enrollment of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties had a six month period of discovery and that
Plaintiffs have made no attempts to meet and confer with them “as to any alleged outstanding
discovery responses at any point.”12 Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ counsel has all the records
previously requested such that any issue as to discovery requests is moot, and that defendants have

8

17-241, R. Doc. 61.

9

17-241, R. Doc. 61, ¶ 8.

10

17-241, R. Doc. 61, ¶ 9.

11

17-241, R. Doc. 61, ¶ 5.

12

17-241, R. Doc. 66, p. 5.

3

“agreed to hold the deposition of Ms. Elizabeth Britten, which has already been set multiple times
and is currently scheduled for June 29, 2018, outside of the discovery deadlines, in accordance
with this Court’s Order.”13 Defendants contend that they are “amenable to producing updated
medical records to plaintiffs’ counsel periodically, outside the fact discovery deadlines, as the
plaintiffs’ medical conditions are pertinent to the lawsuit” and that “any fact discovery in the case,
aside from the currently scheduled deposition of Ms. Britton, is substantially completed….”14
II.

Law and Analysis
The Scheduling Order in both the Henderson and Cormier Suits provides as follows:
The time limits set forth in this order shall not be modified except
by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Joint, agreed or
unopposed motions to extend scheduling order deadlines will not be
granted automatically. All motions to extend scheduling order
deadlines must be supported by facts sufficient to find good cause
as required by Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P. Extensions 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.15

To establish good cause, the party seeking to modify the scheduling order must show “that the
deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.”16 In
considering whether a party has shown good cause, four factors are considered: 1) the explanation
for the failure to timely comply with the scheduling order; 2) the importance of the modification;

13

17-241, R. Doc. 66, p. 5.

14

17-241, R. Doc. 66, pp. 5-6.

15

15-804, R. Doc. 112; 17-241, R. Doc. 50.

16

Grant v. City of Houston, 625 Fed.Appx. 670, 679 (5th Cir. 2015) citing Squyres v. Heico Cos., 782 F.3d 224, 237
(5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Filgueira v. U. S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 734 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2013)(unpublished)(per
curiam)).

4

3) potential prejudice in allowing the modification; and 4) availability of a continuance to cure
such prejudice.17
Here, Plaintiffs assert that this court should consolidate the Doughty Suit with the
previously-filed Henderson and Cormier Suits and should extend the discovery deadlines in the
Henderson and Cormier Suits to match those currently in place in the Doughty Suit. Given that
the Henderson Suit has been pending since November 20, 2015, and the Cormier Suit has been
pending since April 18, 2017, the undersigned is not inclined to consolidate those two suits with
the more recently filed Doughty Suit. While Plaintiffs are amenable to extending the Henderson
and Cormier deadlines to match those in place in the Doughty Suit, the undersigned must weigh
Plaintiffs’ desire to conduct additional discovery with the counterbalancing concern of timely
resolving these lawsuits. Further, although Plaintiffs assert that the deposition of Nurse Britton
and timely production of medical records are necessary to move forward with “other discovery”
and “other depositions,” there is no indication in the Motion to Extend and Consolidate of what
additional discovery Plaintiffs anticipate. Significantly, defendants assert that they have produced
all records requested by Plaintiffs, that the deposition of Nurse Britton has been scheduled for June
28, 2018, and that defendants will continue to supplement their productions with updated medical
records periodically. Moreover, although Plaintiffs intimate that the deposition of Nurse Britton
was previously cancelled due solely to the actions of defendants, this court has previously had to
remind all counsel in these proceedings of their ethical and professional obligations to each other
and to the court.18 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause

17

Id.

18

See, 15-804, R. Doc. 121.

5

for extending the discovery deadlines in the Henderson and Cormier Suits at all, much less good
cause to extend those deadlines to be the same as those in place in the Doughty Suit.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Extend Deadlines and Consolidate

Doughty’s Case for Discovery Purposes Only19 is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 31, 2018.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19

17-cv-241, R. Doc. 61. On June 1, 2017, the Henderson and Cormier cases were consolidated for discovery
purposes only. Although the instant Motion to Extend and Consolidate was only filed in the Cormier matter, No. 17cv-241, because these two cases were consolidated for discovery purposes, the undersigned considers the request for
extension to apply equally to both the Cormier and Henderson matters.

6