Gonzalez et al v. Walmart, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EMMANUEL GONZALEZ AND
ARIELLE JARREAU
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1985
WALMART INC. 	SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the joint motion of plaintiffs and defendant to
amend 	the 	scheduling 	order. 1 	Defendant 	previously 	moved 	for 	a
continuance,2 which this Court denied on January 29, 2026. 3
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 Enter., L.L.C.
v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal
citations omitted). 	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
1 	R. Doc. 25.
2 	R. Doc. 22.
3 	R. Doc. 24.
Case 2:24-cv-01985-SSV-JVM Document 26 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

(5th Cir. 1996). 	In 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) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The parties contend that a continuance is necessary for several reasons.
First, the parties state that the case was “largely paused” due to an agreement
that the parties had amongst themselves. This reason is uncompelling. The
parties do not get to set their own discovery schedule or pick and choose
which deadlines to follow. 	Next the parties state that plaintiff is now
incarcerated, and this has materially impacted his ability to participate in
this case. This development constitutes good cause for a modification of the
scheduling order. 	Finally, the parties state that counsel for plaintiff “may”
be unavailable for the May 2026 current trial date. As the Court has already
determined that good cause exists for an extension based on the second given
reason, the Court need not address whether the potential future conflict
provides good cause to modify deadlines at this juncture.
The Court finds that the parties have shown good cause to continue the
trial and unexpired associated deadlines. Accordingly, the Court continues
Case 2:24-cv-01985-SSV-JVM Document 26 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

the trial and associated unexpired deadlines to be reset at a scheduling
conference held BY TELEPHONE on MARCH 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The parties shall call in for the teleconference using phone number (833)
990-9400, Access Code: 124518418. 	The Court will be represented by its
Case Manager at the scheduling conference. All deadlines that have already
expired are not reset.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of February, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-01985-SSV-JVM Document 26 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3