Edmond v. Venture Global LNG, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
QUANDA EDMOND 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1394
VENTURE GLOBAL LNG, INC., ET
AL.
SECTION R (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to continue (1) the submission
date for the summary judgment motion of defendants Venture Global LNG,
Inc.; Venture Global CCS Plaquemines, LLC; Venture Global LNG, Inc.; and
Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (“the Venture Global defendants”),
and (2) the submission date for the summary judgment motion of defendants
KZJV 	LLC, 	Jerry 	D. 	Kindley, 	and 	Zachry 	Industrial, 	Inc. 	(“the 	KZJV
defendants”). 1 	Alternatively, plaintiff seeks leave to file oppositions to
defendants’ motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) as well as
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 2 	Defendants oppose the
motion. 3
1 	R. Doc. 72.
2 	Id.
3 	R. Docs. 76; 77.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 11

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a vehicular accident at a jobsite in Plaquemines
Parish, 	Louisiana, 	that 	resulted 	in 	bodily 	injury 	to 	plaintiff 	Quanda
Edmond. 4 	On May 22, 2025, plaintiff filed suit in the 25th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Plaquemines against several individuals and entities
operating on the jobsite, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. 5 On July
7, 2025, defendants removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441,
claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.6 	Plaintiff then
amended her complaint several times, leaving two groups of defendants: the
Venture Global defendants and the KZJV defendants. 7
On November 6, 2025, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. 8 	The
Scheduling 	Order 	provided 	that 	“all 	non-evidentiary 	pretrial 	motions,
including dispositive motions . . . shall be filed no later than August 18, 2026.
Memoranda in opposition to motions with citations of authorities are to be
filed no later than August 25, 2026.” 9 On June 25, 2026, the Venture Global
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they are
4 	R Doc. 1 at 1.
5 	R. Doc. 1-1.
6 	R. Doc. 1.
7 	R Docs. 26; 42; 49.
8 	R. Doc. 22.
9 	Id. at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 11

3
entitled to tort immunity under Louisiana workers’ compensation law. 10 The
motion was noticed for submission on August 19, 2026.11 On July 29, 2026,
the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to continue and ordered that “all
deadlines established in the scheduling order on November 6, 2025 that have
not expired are reset.” 12 The Court’s order directed the parties to participate
in 	a 	Scheduling 	Conference 	on 	August 	13, 	2026 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
rescheduling the deadlines. On August 4, 2026, the KZJV defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment, also claiming tort immunity under Louisiana
workers’ compensation law. 13 	The motion was also noticed for submission
on August 19, 2026.14 	After the Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a
new Scheduling Order on August 20, 2026, which provided that “all non-
evidentiary pretrial motions, including dispositive motions . . . shall be filed
no later than March 16, 2027. 	Memoranda in opposition to motions with
citations of authorities are to be filed no later than March 23, 2027.” 15
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either summary judgment motion
by the August 19, 2026 submission date. 	Rather, nearly a month after the
10 	R. Doc. 62.
11 	Id.
12 	R. Doc. 64 at 2.
13 	R. Doc. 65.
14 	R. Doc. 65-3 at 1.
15 	R. Doc. 67 at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 11

4
submission date, plaintiff now argues that the summary judgment motions’
briefing schedules are governed by the August 20, 2026 Scheduling Order. 16
Accordingly, plaintiff moves to continue the deadline to file her oppositions
to the motions to March 23, 2027. 17 	Alternatively, plaintiff moves for leave
to file her oppositions under Rule 6(b)(1) and for relief under Rule 56(d). 18
Defendants oppose the motion. 19 The Court considers the motion below.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Continue
First, plaintiff moves to continue the submission dates of defendants’
summary judgment motions to March 31, 2027. 20 	Plaintiff argues that the
July 29, 2026 continuance and the August 20, 2026 Scheduling Order reset
the August 11, 2026 deadlines for her oppositions to March 23, 2027. 21 They
did not. 	The Scheduling Order provides the last date by which non-
evidentiary pretrial motions shall be filed, which coincides with the deadline
16 	R. Doc. 72 at 2.
17 	Id. at 3. The Court notes that plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum appears
to abandon this March date and instead requests that the Court
continue the submission date for the oppositions to fourteen days from
the date of the Court’s order. R. Doc. 78 at 1–2. This does not affect
the Court’s analysis.
18 	Id.
19 	R. Docs. 76; 77.
20 	R. Doc. 72 at 3.
21 	R. Doc. 72.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 11

5
for discovery. 22 Although it establishes a briefing schedule for motions filed
on the deadline, it does not prohibit the filing of a motion before the
expiration of this deadline. When a motion is filed before the deadline, the
briefing schedule is governed by the Local Rules of this District unless the
Scheduling Order provides to the contrary. 	Local Rule 7.2 provides that
“counsel filing a motion must, at the time of filing, notice it for submission
within a reasonable time.” E.D. La. L.R. 7.2. Both groups of defendants did
so when they filed their motions for summary judgment, setting each motion
for submission on August 19, 2026. 23 	And Local Rule 7.5 provides that the
“party opposing a motion must file and serve a memorandum in opposition
to the motion with citations of authorities no later than eight days before the
noticed submission date.” E.D. La. L.R. 7.5. Thus, plaintiff had until August
11, 2026, to file and serve her memoranda in opposition.
B. Motion for Leave Under Rule 6(b)(1)
Alternatively, 	plaintiff 	seeks 	leave 	to 	file 	her 	oppositions 	within
fourteen days of the Court’s order under Rule 6(b)(1). 	Rule 6(b)(1)(B)
provides that a court may “extend the time on [a] motion made after the time
has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” 	Fed. R.
22 	R. Doc. 67.
23 	R. Docs. 62; 65.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 11

6
Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The Fifth Circuit has provided relevant factors for courts
to consider in evaluating whether a party has shown excusable neglect under
Rule 6(b)(1): “[1] the danger of prejudice to the non-movant, [2] the length
of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings, [3] the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control
of the movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.” 	Adams v.
Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 465 F.3d 156, 162 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006).
Here, these factors weigh in favor of a finding of excusable neglect.
On the first factor, there is little danger of prejudice to defendants in
granting plaintiff fourteen days’ leave to oppose their motions. The Venture
Global defendants do not allege prejudice, and the KZJV defendants only
allege prejudice insofar as the delay will force them to stand trial or face
discovery 	burdens.24 	The 	brief 	delay 	in 	allowing 	plaintiff 	to 	oppose
defendants’ motions will not result in such burdens and thus carries little
risk of prejudice to defendants. 	Thus, the first factor weighs in favor of
granting leave.
On the second factor, defendants’ motions for summary judgment had
been submitted for over a month when plaintiff filed this motion seeking
relief. A one-month delay is “relatively short” and weighs in favor of the party
24 	R. Doc. 77 at 10.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 11

7
seeking relief under Rule 6(b)(1). Theriot v. Building Trades United Pension
Tr. Fund, 2022 WL 2191668, at *3 (E.D. La. June 17, 2022). 	Further, the
parties have not identified any effect this would have on the litigation other
than postponing the Court’s ruling on defendants’ motions. Thus, the second
factor also weighs in favor of granting leave.
On the third factor, plaintiff’s only explanation for her delay is a
misunderstanding 	of 	the 	Local 	Rules, 	the 	Scheduling 	Order, 	and 	the
continuance.25 	This was within her control. 	The Local Rules provide that
“every attorney permitted to practice in this court must be familiar with these
rules.” E.D. La. L.R. 83.2.7. Thus, this factor weighs against granting leave.
Finally, on the fourth factor, there is no indication that plaintiff did not
act in good faith. Plaintiff claims that she interpreted the Scheduling Order
to allow her to file oppositions to defendants’ motions on March 23, 2027,
nearly eight months after defendants’ motions had been filed. 26 Though this
interpretation was certainly unreasonable, there is no evidence that it was in
bad faith. 	Courts have found counsel’s failure to understand briefing
schedules to be in good faith. See Theriot, 2022 WL 2191668, at *3. Further,
after counsel for the Venture Global defendants contacted plaintiff’s counsel
25 	R. Doc. 72.
26 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 11

8
about her failure to oppose defendants’ motions, plaintiff immediately filed
this motion. 27 Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting relief.
Because three out of four factors weigh in favor of a finding of
excusable neglect, plaintiff is entitled to relief under Rule 6(b)(1).
C. Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(d)
Third, plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 56(d). Rule 56(d) provides that,
if “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons,
it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits
or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate
order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
The Fifth Circuit has held that a party is entitled to relief under Rule
56(d) only if they “(1) requested extended discovery prior to the court’s ruling
on summary judgment; (2) placed the district court on notice that further
discovery pertaining to the summary judgment motion was being sought;
and (3) demonstrated to the district court with reasonable specificity how the
requested discovery pertained to the pending motion.” 	Enplanar, Inc. v.
Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284, 1291 (5th Cir. 1994). As to the third requirement, the
27 	R. Doc. 77 at 12.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 8 of 11

9
party seeking relief “may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional
discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts.” 	Raby v. Livingston,
600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 2010). 	Rather, she must “set forth a plausible
basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a
reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how the emergent facts,
if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending summary judgment
motion.” Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887,
894 (5th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff argues that she requires the depositions of several witnesses
in order to file her oppositions to defendants’ motions. 28 She attaches to her
motion a declaration from her counsel stating that plaintiff cannot present
facts essential to justify her oppositions to defendants’ motions without these
depositions. 29 	Plaintiff’s counsel contends that her opposition requires the
deposition of Jerry Kindley concerning whether he was acting in the course
and scope of his employment at the time of the incident. He also contends
that plaintiff requires the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of several of the
defendant 	entities 	regarding 	their 	subcontracting 	arrangements 	and
relationships inter sese.30
28 	R. Doc. 72.
29 	R. Doc. 72-4.
30 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 9 of 11

10
The Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to relief under Rule 56(d). Both
motions assert immunity under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law
(“LWCL”), relying in part on the relationships between the defendant entities
and defendant individuals. 31 	Also relevant is whether defendant Jerry
Kindley was operating within the scope of his employment at the time of the
incident. 	Plaintiff’s proposed depositions pertain to these issues and thus
defendants’ immunity under the LWCL. Thus, the court finds that plaintiff
is entitled to additional time to conduct further discovery and file her
oppositions. Plaintiff must complete any discovery necessary to respond to
defendants’ motions by December 31, 2026. 	Plaintiff’s oppositions to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment will be due on January 7, 2027.
Defendants will have one week to file their reply memoranda, if any, due on
January 14, 2027. 	The motions will be deemed submitted on January 14,
2027.
31 	R. Docs. 62; 65.
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 10 of 11

11
D. CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	plaintiff 	leave 	to
complete any discovery necessary to respond to defendants’ motions by
December 31, 2026. 	Plaintiff must file her oppositions to defendants’
motions by January 7, 2027. 	Defendants must file memoranda in reply, if
any, by January 14, 2027. The submission date for defendants’ motions for
summary judgment is reset to January 14, 2027.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of October, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14th
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 79 Filed 10/14/26 Page 11 of 11