Lassere v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LASSERE
VERSUS
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING
LLC ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-303
SECTION "L" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Norvel Joseph Lassere Jr.’s Motion for Expedited
Discovery (R. Doc. 25). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, requests that Defendants be
ordered to produce documents relative to the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property within
14 days.1 The motion is denied for the following reasons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits discovery before a Rule 26(f)
conference only when authorized by court order. “The burden of showing good cause
is on the party seeking expedited discovery.” St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives
Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 240 (S.D. Tex. 2011). Relevant factors include the “breadth of
the discovery requests, the purpose for requesting expedited discovery, the burden on
the defendants to comply with the requests and how far in advance of the typical
discovery process the request was made.” Id. at 240 n.4. Ultimately, courts must
balance the need for expedited discovery against the prejudice to the opposing party.
See id. at 239–40.
1 R. Docs. 25, 1-1 at 5.
Case 2:26-cv-00303-EEF-EJD Document 26 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The relevant factors weigh heavily against permitting expedited discovery. The
District Court recently “expressed concern that Mr. Lassere represents a Trust pro
se, as case law has consistently held that trusts may not be represented pro se, by a
nonattorney trustee.” R. Doc. 18 at 2 (citing Dillard Fam. Trust v. Chase Home Fin.,
LLC, No. 11-1740, 2011 WL 6747416, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2011) (“In an Article
III court, a non-attorney trustee may not represent a trust pro se.”)). Plaintiff has not
obtained counsel since the issuance of the District Court’s order. It is unclear whether
Plaintiff has standing to prosecute this action or propound discovery. At this stage,
Defendants could be prejudiced by an order expediting discovery. Moreover, no
scheduling conference has been set and there is a pending motion to dismiss.2 And
while Plaintiff’s motion argues that the requested discovery is relevant, it does not
address why discovery should be expedited. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish
good cause for expedited discovery.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 25) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23 rd day of March, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 R. Doc. 23.
Case 2:26-cv-00303-EEF-EJD Document 26 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2