Washington v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRUCE WASHINGTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 22-632 RANDY SMITH, ET AL. SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion1 to extend the deadlines for plaintiffs’ expert reports and the close of discovery. Defendants oppose2 the motion.

A court’s scheduling order may be modified “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Fifth Circuit applies a four-factor test in considering requests to modify a scheduling order, weighing (1) the explanation for the failure to adhere to the deadline at issue; (2) the importance of the proposed modification to the scheduling order; (3) potential prejudice; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 790– (5th Cir. 1990).

“A trial court has broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of its pretrial orders ‘which, toward the end of court efficiency, is to expedite pretrial procedure.’” Boyd v. Boeing Co., No. 15-25, 2016 WL 760687, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, R. Doc. No. 48.

2 R. Doc. No. 49.

2016) (Africk, J.) (quoting S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)).

Having considered the parties’ positions, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have not established good cause for the proposed deadline extensions.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion? is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20, 2022.

Si □□ □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE R. Doc. No. 48.