Lemus-Hernandez v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRAULIO LEMUS HERNANDEZ CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-752 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., ET AL. SECTION “B”(2) ORDER AND REASONS Considering plaintiff Braulio Lemus Hernandez’s motion to continue the court’s scheduling order (Rec. Doc. 23) and defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company (“BP defendants”)’s response in opposition (Rec. Doc. 30), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) requires good cause and the judge’s consent to modify a scheduling order. See also Squyres v. Heico Companies, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Meaux Surface Prot., Inc. v. Folgeman, 607 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2010)) (noting four factors for good cause under Rule 16). Plaintiff contends: (1) the scientific complexity of the case requires additional time to conduct discovery for expert reports, or risk dismissal on procedural technicalities rather than scientific merit; (2) the pending discovery is relevant to plaintiff’s theory of the case; (3) the delay in discovery is due to BP’s lengthy review of its contractors’ documents for privilege, exacerbated by the inadequate record keeping systems of the contractors and BP defendants; (4) more time is necessary to ensure plaintiff’s experts are not overburdened; and (5) plaintiff would be prejudiced without the requested extension, but no prejudice would be imposed upon the BP defendants. Rec. Doc. 23-1. BP defendants argue: (1) the third- party discovery is not designed to generate alternative data for calculating a plaintiff’s dose of exposure, instead, Hernandez hopes only to use the discovery to discredit the contractor data; (2) despite knowing the identity and involvement of these third-party contractors since 2010, the Down’s group did not act diligently to serve subpoenas upon the BP contractors; and (3) a 90-day continuance would prejudice BP defendants by delaying resolution and increasing litigation expenses. Rec. Doc. 30. While both parties raise meritorious points, this matter would benefit from a more complete record. Thus, a limited 90-day continuance for unexpired deadlines is warranted. Cognizant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1’s directive, the Court cautions that another motion to continue deadlines without a demonstration of good cause will not be treated as favorably. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties in the above-captioned matter shall attend a telephonic scheduling conference on Tuesday, January 17 at 11:00 a.m. before the Case Manager, Dena White consistent with the limitations imposed by this order. Parties shall call in for the conference using the phone number (888) 278-0296 and access code 6243426. New Orleans, Louisiana this 19th day of December, 2022 ___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE