Touchet v. United Specialty Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES TOUCHET 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1020
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion from defendants Doreglys Manzano
Borrell and Alive Free Transportation to modify the scheduling order. 1 	For
the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to continue the trial date
but denies the motion to reset discovery and expert pretrial deadlines.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]
scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 	The “good cause standard requires the
party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” 	S&W Enters.,
L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned
up). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion
of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In
1 	R. Doc. 65.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 68 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is
exceedingly 	wide, 	for . . . [it] 	must 	consider 	not 	only 	the 	facts 	of 	the
particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.”
Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting HC Gun &
Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000)
(cleaned up)).
Here, the defendants ask the Court to continue the trial and pretrial
deadlines and reset discovery and expert pretrial deadlines. 	Defendants’
counsel withdrew on December 19, 2025, and defendants’ new counsel
cleared conflicts on January 5, 2026. 	Defendants assert that they were
without counsel during the close of discovery, the expiration of expert
deadlines, and related motion practice and thus request a modification of the
Scheduling Order to cure the lack of counsel. 2
Defendants are incorrect. 	The discovery and disclosure deadline, as
well as the Daubert motion deadline, was December 9, 2025. 3 	Defendants
were represented at that time. Further, the dispositive motion deadline was
December 16, 2025.4 	Defendants were not only represented at that time;
their counsel filed a summary judgment motion. 	The Court finds that
2 	R. Docs. 65, 66.
3 	R. Doc. 25.
4 	R. Doc. 42.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 68 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
defendants have not asserted good cause to reset the discovery and expert
pretrial deadlines, as these deadlines could have been met with reasonable
diligence.
Given new counsel’s recent enrollment, the Court GRANTS the motion
to continue the March 2, 2026 trial date. IT IS ORDERED that a scheduling
conference 	will 	be 	held 	BY 	TELEPHONE 	on 	February 	3, 	2026 	at
10:30 a.m. for the purpose of re-scheduling a pre-trial conference and trial
on the merits and any unexpired deadlines. The Court will be represented at
the conference by its Case Manager. Counsel is to dial-in to the conference
using telephone number: (833) 990-9400, Access Code: 124518418.
At the scheduling conference, the parties will re-schedule only the
deadlines in this Court’s scheduling order 5 that have not yet passed. 	All
remaining deadlines that have passed are not reset.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of January, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 	R. Doc. 25.
16th
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 68 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3