Norvel Joseph Lassere Jr. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASSERE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 26-303 SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING SECTION "L" (3) LLC ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Plaintiff Norvel Joseph Lassere Jr.’s Motion for Expedited Discovery (R. Doc. 25). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, requests that Defendants be ordered to produce documents relative to the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property within days.1 The motion is denied for the following reasons.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits discovery before a Rule 26(f) conference only when authorized by court order. “The burden of showing good cause is on the party seeking expedited discovery.” St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 240 (S.D. Tex. 2011). Relevant factors include the “breadth of the discovery requests, the purpose for requesting expedited discovery, the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests and how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Id. at 240 n.4. Ultimately, courts must balance the need for expedited discovery against the prejudice to the opposing party.

See id. at 239–40.

1 R. Docs. 25, 1-1 at 5.

The relevant factors weigh heavily against permitting expedited discovery. The District Court recently “expressed concern that Mr. Lassere represents a Trust pro se, as case law has consistently held that trusts may not be represented pro se, by a nonattorney trustee.” R. Doc. 18 at 2 (citing Dillard Fam. Trust v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 11-1740, 2011 WL 6747416, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2011) (“In an Article III court, a non-attorney trustee may not represent a trust pro se.”)). Plaintiff has not obtained counsel since the issuance of the District Court’s order. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has standing to prosecute this action or propound discovery. At this stage, Defendants could be prejudiced by an order expediting discovery. Moreover, no scheduling conference has been set and there is a pending motion to dismiss.2 And while Plaintiff's motion argues that the requested discovery is relevant, it does not address why discovery should be expedited. Thus, Plaintiffs motion fails to establish good cause for expedited discovery.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 25) is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23"¢ day of March, 2026.

c fk J. DOSSIER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE