Kathleen Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants in part and denies in part Kathleen Moller's motion to supplement the argument and evidence supporting her motion for partial summary judgment concerning alter ego, single business enterprise, and veil-piercing issues. The court permits supplementation with recent deposition testimony from Peyton Palaio and JOpen's corporate representative and with two orders from other courts, but denies supplementation with an expert report, a new manufacturer-liability argument, and older deposition testimony. The court sets deadlines and page limits for the supplemental memorandum and any response.

Holdings

1. Rule 15(d) does not apply because a motion is not a pleading within the meaning of Rule 7(a); however, a district court has discretion to decide whether to allow supplementation of argument and evidence supporting a pending summary-judgment motion.
2. The court denied leave to supplement with the expert report and the new argument that Martian Sales, Inc. was a manufacturer under Louisiana product-liability law.
3. The court granted leave to supplement the summary-judgment motion with Peyton Palaio's October 9, 2025 deposition testimony, the October 16, 2025 corporate deposition of JOpen, and two recent orders from other courts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) permits a party to supplement a pending motion for partial summary judgment.
2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow supplementation of summary-judgment argument and evidence with an expert report, a new Louisiana-product-liability argument, deposition testimony, and orders from other courts.
3. Whether the requested supplementation would cause unfair prejudice or reflect a lack of diligence.

Disposition

other