Hamilton v. Ochsner Health Sys., Inc.

Full title: CURTIS HAMILTON, et al. v. OCHSNER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SECTION: "G"(1)

Date published: Dec 11, 2012

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1398 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1398

12-11-2012

CURTIS HAMILTON, et al. v. OCHSNER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Curtis Hamilton and Rosa Hamilton's ("Plaintiffs") Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By Jane Eason, PT,¹ filed on December 7, 2012. Jane Eason is a proposed expert witness for Defendant Ochsner Health Systems, Inc. ("Oschner") listed as a "will call" witness in the proposed pre-trial order.² However, a scheduling order was issued in this matter on August 9, 2012 and states that, "Motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony shall be filed and served in sufficient time to permit hearing thereon no later than NOVEMBER 21, 2012 " ³

1 Rec. Doc. 27.

2 See Rec. Doc. 26 at p. 14.

3 Rec. Doc. 7 at p. 2 (emphasis in original).

"A schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the judge's consent."⁴A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion as untimely when the movant never requested leave to amend the scheduling order deadlines nor provides an explanation as to why the motion was untimely filed.⁵ Here, Plaintiffs have never requested a modification of the deadline to file motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and, moreover, have not even acknowledged that the pending motion is untimely. Because of the late filing, the submission date for this motion is January 7, 2013 - the day trial is set to commence. Therefore, the Court will deny the pending motion as untimely.⁶ Accordingly,

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

5 Argo v. Woods, 399 Fed. App'x. 1, 3 (5th Cir. 2010).

6 Id. (citing Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. D.I.C., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 252, 253-54 (S.D. Tex. 1984) (denying a motion filed after the cut-off date because "[t]he Defendant offers the court no explanation or showing of 'good cause' why on the eve of trial the motion should be considered.")).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Relative to Exclusion of Testimony By Jane Eason, PT⁷ is DENIED.

7 Rec. Doc. 27.
--------

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 11th day of December, 2012.

______________________

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE