Williams v. C&G Boats, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL WILLIAMS 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1929
C&G BOATS, INC., ET AL. 	SECTION R
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court are two motions: (1) defendants C&G Boats, Inc., and
M N M Boats, Inc.’s unopposed motion to continue trial and all outstanding
deadlines;1 and (2) the joint motion of defendants and plaintiff Michael
Williams for a status conference to discuss modifications to the scheduling
order.2 	For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to continue
and denies the motion for a status conference as moot.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
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.,
1 	R. Doc. 27.
2 	R. Doc. 34.
Case 2:25-cv-01929-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation
modified). 	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 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)
(citation modified)).
II. 	DISCUSSION
In their motion to continue, defendants argue that more time is needed
to conduct discovery as a result of both production delays by plaintiff and
several revelations made by plaintiff immediately during a deposition on
May 22, 2026.3 Defendants claim that plaintiff responded to interrogatories
and requests for production in late May only after defendants filed a first
motion to compel, months after these documents were served on plaintiff.4
Defendants also claim that at his deposition, plaintiff produced, for the first
time, a significant diary entry that plaintiffs had requested in October 2025.
3 	R. Doc. 27 at 2–5.
4 	Id. at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01929-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
They further claim that plaintiff’s answer about his previous application for
disability status with the U.S. Veterans Administration raises the possibility
of preexisting spinal injuries, for which more discovery is needed. 	Finally,
they claim that plaintiff has failed to provide contact information for several
key 	witnesses.5 	Contemporaneously 	with 	their 	motion 	to 	continue,
defendants filed a second motion to compel discovery related to these
matters.6
In the joint motion, the parties agree that “key depositions and
discovery 	remain 	outstanding 	in 	this 	matter.”7 	In 	addition, 	plaintiff
underwent a surgical procedure on June 22, 2026. 	The full extent of his
medical needs has not yet been determined, leaving uncertainty about the
scope of the case.8
The Court grants the motion to continue trial and all deadlines that had
not yet expired upon defendants’ filing of their motion to continue on July 7,
2026, including the discovery and deposition deadline, the dispositive
motion deadline, and the deadlines for motions relating to expert witnesses.
The Court finds that time to conduct additional discovery is warranted and
5 	Id. at 6.
6 	R. Doc. 30.
7 	R. Doc. 34-1 at 2.
8 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01929-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
that plaintiff’s ongoing medical care justifies a postponement of trial.
Therefore, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	the 	parties 	have 	good 	cause 	for 	the
continuance and cannot reasonably meet the current deadlines despite their
diligence. 	See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535. 	The Court orders a
scheduling conference, which renders the parties’ request for a status
conference moot.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to
continue proceedings and DENIES AS MOOT the joint motion for a status
conference. The new scheduling conference will be held BY TELEPHONE
on AUGUST 11, 2026, at 10:00 am for the purpose of re-scheduling the
pre-trial conference and trial on the merits, and for a discussion of the status
of the case and discovery deadlines. 	All deadlines established in the
scheduling order on October 10, 2025, which had not expired as of July 7,
2026, are reset. The parties shall call in for the teleconference using phone
number (833) 990-9400 and access code 124518418. 	The Court will be
represented by its Case Manager.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of July, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01929-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 07/21/26 Page 4 of 4