Touchet v. United Specialty Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES TOUCHET 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1020
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is an unopposed motion from plaintiff Charles
Touchet to modify the scheduling order. 1 	For the following reasons, the
Court grants the motion.
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). In
deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is
1 	R. Doc. 37.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 39 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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)
(cleaned up)).
The Court grants the motion to modify the scheduling order. Here, the
plaintiff requests an extension only of the deadline for expert reports and
Daubert motions. Plaintiff makes such a request because, despite plaintiff’s
diligence, plaintiff recently learned through depositions of the defendant
that the defendant has not provided all the discovery materials that were
requested in written discovery and available to defendant. Plaintiff avers he
needs the materials to be able to craft a fulsome expert report. 	The Court
finds that this suffices as good cause.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to modify
the scheduling order. All deadlines that have passed are not reset.
Plaintiff’s expert reports shall be delivered to counsel for defendant no
later than 	December 9, 2025. 	Defendant’s expert reports shall be
delivered to counsel for plaintiff no later than December 29, 2025.
Motions challenging the qualifications of expert witnesses, and/or the
reliability or relevance of expert testimony (Daubert motions) shall be filed
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 39 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 3

3
no later than January 5, 2026. 	Any reply memoranda shall be filed no
later than January 13, 2026, at which time the motion will be deemed
submitted.
Depositions for trial use shall be taken and all other discovery shall be
completed no later than December 29, 2025.
All other deadlines in this Court’s April 15, 2025 scheduling order
remain unchanged.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __ day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14th
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 39 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 3