CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-7523, SECTION: “J” (1).United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
July 11, 2008
ORDER
CARL BARBIER, District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion In Limine to ExcludeUnproduced Evidence From Trial (Rec. Doc. 15). Plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on June 25, 2008, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. Having reviewed the motion, the memoranda of counsel, and applicable law, this Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be denied.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants a district court the power to control pretrial discovery utilizing a scheduling order. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)’s grant of authority requires “broad discretion” be given to the district court to control pretrial discovery. SeeGeiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1990). It is clear to the Court from the memoranda submitted that Plaintiff’s counsel in this case has failed to comply with many of the Court’s scheduling deadlines. However, granting of Defendant’s motion in this circumstance would essentially strike all of Plaintiff’s witnesses, the equivalent of an order of
Page 2
dismissal. Such a drastic remedy is not appropriate based on the fault of Plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, the Court does not believe that Defendant will be prejudiced by granting a relatively short continuance of the trial in this matter so that discovery may be conducted allowing an appropriate amount of time for the Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s late disclosures, and prepare for trial. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to ExcludeUnproduced Evidence (Rec. Doc. 15) should be and is herebyDENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial in this matter, currently set for August 18, 2008 is CONTINUED. A telephone conference with the Case Manager will be held on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 11:15a.m. to schedule new trial and pre-trial dates. The Case Manager will initiate the call.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin Tucker, attorney for plaintiff, is to appear before the Court on Wednesday, August 6,2008 at 9:30 a.m. to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Scheduling Order
Page 1