Thomas et al v. Allied Trust Insurance Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANGELA THOMAS AND
ELLIOT THOMAS
VERSUS
ALLIED TRUST INSURANCE
COMPANY
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-7138
SECTION: “H”
AMENDED ORDER AND REASONS
Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order
of this Court issued on January 12, 2026 (Doc. 49) is stricken and replaced with
the following:
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	Allied 	Trust 	Insurance’s 	Motion 	to
Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. 48). For the following reasons, the Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Angela and Elliot Thomas brought this action against their
insurer, Defendant Allied Trust Insurance Company, after Hurricane Ida
damaged their home.1 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has, in bad faith, failed
to compensate them for covered losses under their insurance policy.
On January 20, 2025, Defendant moved to compel Plaintiffs’ discovery
responses.2 Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld held a hearing on the motion
and ordered Plaintiffs to respond to outstanding discovery by March 3, 2025;
1 Defendants removed this action based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
2 Doc. 14.
Case 2:23-cv-07138-JTM-JVM Document 50 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Plaintiffs were warned that no further extensions would be permitted.3 On
March 	10, 	2025, 	the 	parties 	attended 	a 	status 	conference 	before 	the
Magistrate, and Plaintiffs were ordered to produce their discovery responses
by 5:00 p.m. on March 11, 2025.4 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs were ordered
to show cause before the Magistrate as to why they should not be sanctioned
for their failure to produce discovery responses and why this matter should not
be dismissed.5 Plaintiffs did not appear, and the Magistrate issued a Report
and 	Recommendations, 	recommending 	that 	this 	matter 	be 	dismissed 	for
failure 	to 	prosecute.6 	The 	Court 	declined 	to 	adopt 	the 	Magistrate’s
recommendation, setting a status conference and extending the discovery
deadline instead.7 At the May 20, 2025 status conference, the Court granted
Plaintiffs an additional eight days to produce their responses to outstanding
discovery 	and 	ordered 	that 	the 	remaining 	trial 	deadlines 	be 	reset 	to
accommodate Plaintiffs’ delays in producing discovery.8
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs also failed to submit their expert disclosures and
written reports as required by this Court’s Scheduling Order and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26, and Defendant moved to exclude any testimony or report
of any proposed expert offered by Plaintiffs.9 The Court held another status
conference on July 18, 2025, intending to discuss this failure, but Plaintiffs did
3 Doc. 17.
4 Doc. 19.
5 Doc. 20.
6 Docs. 25–26. Plaintiffs objected to the Report and Recommendations. Doc. 30.
7 Doc. 34. This Court found that dismissal was not warranted as Plaintiffs’ counsel stressed
that his clients were not responsible for the delay. Further, the Court believed that other,
lesser 	sanctions 	could 	remedy 	Plaintiffs’ 	failures 	to 	produce 	discovery 	and 	prevent
substantial prejudice to both parties.
8 Doc. 37.
9 Doc. 21.
Case 2:23-cv-07138-JTM-JVM Document 50 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
not appear.10 The Court then granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
expert testimony.11
On August 21, 2025, the Court held another status conference to discuss
Plaintiffs’ failure to produce discovery. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce
their outstanding discovery responses by August 27, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. and
warned them that their failure to do so may result in dismissal.
The morning of August 27, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’
repeated failures to produce their discovery responses. At the hearing, the
Court detailed Plaintiffs’ history of discovery failures, previous extensions, and
the sanctions the Court had imposed. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court
that 	he 	had 	identified 	the 	outstanding 	discovery 	and 	was 	working 	with
Plaintiffs to respond but would be unable to produce responses by the Court’s
4:00 p.m. deadline. Considering Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations, the Court
granted Plaintiffs another opportunity to produce their discovery, setting a
final deadline for September 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. and instructing Defendant to
file a motion to dismiss if Plaintiffs failed to meet the deadline.
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss after the expiration of
the September 2, 2025 deadline. Plaintiffs do not oppose.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a district court to impose
sanctions against a party if it “fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery.”12 Available sanctions include, “directing . . . designated facts be
taken as established for the purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
claims; 	prohibiting 	the 	disobedient 	party 	from 	supporting 	or 	opposing
10 Doc. 44.
11 Doc. 45.
12 FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
Case 2:23-cv-07138-JTM-JVM Document 50 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence; 	striking 	pleadings 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part,” 	or 	“staying 	further
proceedings until the order is obeyed.”13 A court may even dismiss the action
under Rule 37, when “the deterrent value of Rule 37 cannot be substantially
achieved by the use of less drastic sanctions.”14 While the district court’s
discretion to sanction under Rule 37 is broad, dismissal with prejudice is
considered “draconian” and “a ‘remedy of last resort’ only to be applied in
extreme circumstances.”15 As such, an action may not be dismissed with
prejudice when “it has been established that failure to comply has been due to
inability, and not to willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of the petitioner.”16
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In its Motion, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs produced some of the
discovery the Court repeatedly ordered them to produce. However, Defendant
identifies deficiencies that Plaintiffs have still failed to remedy, namely their
failure to produce: (1) any receipts or invoices for any repairs alleged to have
been completed; (2) any information or documentation from at least fourteen
bank or credit accounts; (3) any documentation of completed or proposed
repairs; or (4) evidence of any communications with Plaintiffs’ “public adjuster,
appraiser, or any contractors or subcontractors” regarding their claims.17
The original discovery deadline in this matter was May 18, 2025.18 As of
this Order, Plaintiffs have failed to produce their discovery responses despite
multiple conferences, extensions, and court orders. As Defendant’s Motion
13 Id.
14 Id.; Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs., Inc. 765 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1985).
15 Batson, 765 F.2d at 515.
16 Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc. 427 U.S. 639, 640 (1976) (quoting Societe
Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212 (1958)).
17 Doc. 48-1 at 5–8.
18 Doc. 12.
Case 2:23-cv-07138-JTM-JVM Document 50 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
aptly points out, Plaintiffs could obtain much of the missing documentation
from third parties—such as their banks, contractors, or online vendors—yet
they have not done so. Further, Plaintiffs have not offered any justifiable
explanation for their failures.
Plaintiffs’ repeated discovery failures have untenably delayed this action
and stymied any opportunity of defense. Given the subject matter of this suit,
the documents not yet produced are critical to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims,
meaning Defendant would face substantial prejudice without them. The Court
has granted ample opportunity to respond to outstanding discovery requests.
This Court has already imposed lesser sanctions by striking Plaintiffs’ expert
opinion testimony, and finds that other, lesser sanctions would be futile.19
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to comply with this Court’s discovery
orders warrant dismissal of this action with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’
Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 13th day of January, 2026.
_________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 Doc. 45.
Case 2:23-cv-07138-JTM-JVM Document 50 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 5