DAVID v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 08-1220 (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20141010882
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Defendants Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. (collectively "Signal"). 1 Signal requests an extension of the fact discovery deadline from November 28, 2014 to February 28, 2015. Signal argues that completing all remaining depositions within the discovery deadline imposes undue hardship. The Court disagrees for multiple reasons. First, in complex cases such as
Summary: ORDER SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Defendants Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. (collectively "Signal"). 1 Signal requests an extension of the fact discovery deadline from November 28, 2014 to February 28, 2015. Signal argues that completing all remaining depositions within the discovery deadline imposes undue hardship. The Court disagrees for multiple reasons. First, in complex cases such as t..
More
ORDER
SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Defendants Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. (collectively "Signal").1 Signal requests an extension of the fact discovery deadline from November 28, 2014 to February 28, 2015. Signal argues that completing all remaining depositions within the discovery deadline imposes undue hardship. The Court disagrees for multiple reasons.
First, in complex cases such as this one, a certain amount of hardship is unavoidable. In the Eastern District of Louisiana alone, there are eight related cases pending, all of which involve several parties and multiple causes of action. Signal and its counsel have adequate resources to meet the demands of these cases. Second, a continuance would compromise the integrity of the remaining deadlines in this case and the related cases. The parties and this Court have worked diligently to confect deadlines that balance the needs of counsel with the plaintiffs' right to a speedy resolution of serious allegations. A late continuance would upend this carefully orchestrated balance. Finally, the discovery deadline has been in place for over seven months. The parties have had ample time to plan their schedules accordingly.
Given the foregoing;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. R. Doc. 373.
Source: Leagle
