Holistic Health a Professional Medical Corporation et al v. Bankers Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HOLISTIC HEALTH, A
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL
CORPORATION, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-6000
BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL.
SECTION “R” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a joint motion from plaintiffs Holistic Health, a
Professional Medical Corporation, and KSZA Properties, LLC and defendant
Bankers Insurance Company to modify the scheduling order and continue
the deposition deadline in this case. 1 	For the following reasons, the Court
denies the motion.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]
scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 	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.” 	S&W Enters.,
L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned
1 	R. Doc. 35.
Case 2:23-cv-06000-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

2
up). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is within the sound discretion
of the trial court. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996). In
deciding whether to grant a continuance, the Court’s “judgment range is
exceedingly 	wide, 	for . . . [it] 	must 	consider 	not 	only 	the 	facts 	of 	the
particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.”
Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting HC Gun &
Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000)
(cleaned up)).
The Court denies the joint motion to modify the scheduling order and
continue the deposition deadline. 	Hurricane Ida, which precipitated the
events in this lawsuit, made landfall on August 29, 2021, more than four
years prior to the current motion. This Court set the deadline for depositions
on April 24, 2025, more than seven months ago.2 The only reason the parties
cite for a continuance is that they are handling a “large volume of hurricane
cases.” 3 	The Court finds that attorneys over-scheduling themselves is not
good cause and that the parties have not exercised appropriate diligence to
meet the Court’s deadlines. See S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535.
2 	R. Doc. 22.
3 	R. Doc. 35, at 1.
Case 2:23-cv-06000-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the joint motion to
continue the deposition deadline.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-06000-SSV-MBN Document 36 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3