Crystal of Kenner, LLC v. Safepoint Insurance Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CRYSTAL OF KENNER, LLC 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-6520
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE
COMPANY
SECTION “R” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	plaintiff’s 	unopposed 	motion 	to 	modify 	the
scheduling order to extend plaintiff’s expert discovery deadline and to
continue trial. 1
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.,
L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned
up). 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).
1 	R. Doc. 22.
Case 2:23-cv-06520-SSV-MBN Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court finds that plaintiff has not met the good cause standard here.
See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535. As to the expert discovery deadline,
that the retained experts have requested an extension, without more, does
not show that the deadlines could not be reasonably met with diligence. As
to the continuance of trial, the Court issued the scheduling order 2 in October,
two months before Madison Pitre was substituted as the attorney of record. 3
With diligence, Mr. Pitre could have discerned this conflict before moving to
be 	substituted, 	particularly 	as 	Pitre’s 	law 	firm, 	Hair 	Shunnarah 	Trial
Attorneys, was and remains plaintiff’s counsel. 	Plaintiff has provided no
reason why one of the other hundreds of litigators employed at Hair
Shunnarah could not reasonably represent plaintiff at trial, including his co-
counsel on the case. The Court finds that plaintiff has not shown good cause
to continue the May 18, 2026 trial date.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to modify the
scheduling order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __ day of January, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 	R. Doc. 16.
3 	R. Doc. 19.
27th
Case 2:23-cv-06520-SSV-MBN Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2