Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part and denied in part the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. The court found good cause to reset the trial, pretrial conference, and pretrial order deadlines because of counsel’s scheduling conflicts, but declined to move the other deadlines. A telephone scheduling conference was set for April 16, 2026, and all other deadlines were left unchanged.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order.
- Whether counsel's conflicts with the trial date and the parties' ongoing settlement negotiations justified moving all pretrial deadlines in addition to the trial date.
Holdings
- The parties demonstrated good cause to reset the trial date because counsel's previously disclosed, continuing scheduling conflicts provided sufficient reason to move the trial.
- Counsel's conflicts with the trial date did not establish good cause to move all associated pretrial deadlines, and the parties' desire for additional settlement time likewise did not justify modifying those deadlines.
Key quotations
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.””
“The “good cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.””
“Here, the parties have demonstrated good cause to reset the trial date.”
Factual background
Plaintiffs' counsel had previously disclosed scheduling conflicts involving the then-current trial date, and the conflicts had not dissipated. The parties stated that they had diligently engaged in discovery and settlement negotiations. They sought to move the trial and all associated deadlines, but did not demonstrate that the pretrial deadlines could not reasonably be met.
Procedural history
The action was pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana under a scheduling order entered September 4, 2025. The parties represented that plaintiffs' counsel had preexisting conflicts with the trial date and that the parties were diligently pursuing discovery and settlement. The court granted the motion in part as to the trial, pretrial conference, and pretrial order deadlines, but denied it as to all other deadlines.