Buckey et al v. Henry's Uptown Bar, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JORDAN BUCKEY ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS

NO. 25-747
HENRY’S UPTOWN BAR, LLC SECTION R

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Henry’s Uptown Bar’s unopposed
motion in limine to exclude all witnesses and exhibits of plaintiffs Jordan
Buckey and William Trevor.
1
Also before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to file a witness and exhibit list.
2
Defendant opposed this motion.
3
For
the following reasons, the Court grants in part the motion in limine in part.
The Court also grants in part the motion for leave to file a witness and exhibit
list.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court’s scheduling order of August 15, 2025, required plaintiffs to
provide expert reports and disclosures to defendant by December 19, 2025;
to complete depositions and all other discovery by January 20, 2026; to file
a witness and exhibit list by January 20, 2026; to exchange copies of exhibits

1
R. Doc. 18.
2
R. Doc. 33.
3
R. Doc. 36.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 1 of 11

2

and deposition designations of proposed trial witnesses by March 2, 2026;
and to meet with defendant’s counsel to agree on stipulations and resolve
evidentiary objections by March 6, 2026.
4
The docket shows that plaintiffs
did not file a witness and exhibit list by the deadline, and defendant’s
motion—which plaintiffs do not oppose—represents that plaintiffs failed to
meet each of these other deadlines.
5
At no point did plaintiffs file for a
continuance.
In light of plaintiffs’ repeated failures to abide by the scheduling order,
defendant filed both a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute on March
12, 2026, and the present motion in limine on March 16, 2026.
6
On April 16,
2026, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, instead imposing a fine on
plaintiffs’ counsel and requiring her to pay defendant’s attorney’s fees.
7
The
Court did not rule on the motion in limine, which the Court rules on now.
In its motion in limine, defendant moves the Court to preclude
plaintiffs from introducing any witnesses or exhibits at trial.
8
Plaintiffs did
not file an opposition.

4
R. Doc. 7.
5
R. Doc. 18 at 4–5.
6
R. Doc. 13; R. Doc. 18.
7
R. Doc. 25.
8
R. Doc. 18 at 15.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 2 of 11

3

On July 21, 2026, plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file a witness
and exhibit list.
9
Plaintiffs seek to list the following witnesses and exhibits:
10

Witnesses
1. Jordan Buckey
2. William Trevor
3. Alexis Leblanc
4. Any witness listed by defendant
Exhibits
1. Text messages in the possession of either plaintiff
2. Photographs in the possession of either plaintiff
3. Social media screenshots
4. Time/tip and sales reports
5. Paychecks/stubs
6. Any exhibit listed by defendant.
Defendant filed an opposition.
11

The Court considers these motions.

9
R. Doc. 33.
10
R. Doc. 33-1 at 1–2.
11
R. Doc. 36.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3 of 11

4

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) authorizes district courts to
control and expedite the discovery process through a scheduling order. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Consistent with this authority, the Court has “broad
discretion” to enforce its scheduling order. See Geiserman v. MacDonald,
893 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir.1990) (“[O]ur court gives the trial court ‘broad
discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of the pretrial order.’”
(quoting Hodges v. United States, 597 F.2d 1014, 1018 (5th Cir.1979))). Rule
16(f) authorizes the Court to sanction a party for failing to comply with its
scheduling order by excluding evidence. Id. (“[A] a trial court’s decision to
exclude evidence as a means of enforcing a pretrial order “must not be
disturbed” absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
III. DISCUSSION
Following the Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, the
Court issued a new scheduling order resetting some, but not all, lapsed
deadlines that plaintiffs had missed.
12
Specifically, the Court reset the
parties’ deadlines (1) to exchange copies of exhibits, a list of proposed trial
exhibits, and deposition designations of proposed trial witnesses; (2) to
object to exhibits and deposition testimony; (3) to meet to agree to

12
R. Doc. 26.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 4 of 11

5

stipulations and resolve evidentiary objections; and (4) to submit
memoranda on unresolved objections.
13
The Court also reset the pretrial
conference and the trial date.
14

The Court did not reset several deadlines. First, the Court did not reset
plaintiffs’ deadlines to provide expert reports and disclosures or to engage in
discovery, including depositions. In its motion in limine, defendant
represents that plaintiffs have not made any expert disclosures, engaged in
any written discovery, or taken any depositions.
15
The deadline to conduct
these forms of discovery has passed, foreclosing plaintiffs from conducting
this discovery now. The Court therefore grants defendant’s motion in limine
with respect to any expert witness, deposition, or evidence obtained through
discovery that plaintiff may seek to take or introduce. Plaintiff may not
introduce any such evidence. The Court addresses other forms of evidence
defendant seeks to exclude in its discussion of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
file, below.
Second, the Court did not reset the deadline to file witness and exhibit
lists. Plaintiffs now seek leave to file a list of witnesses and exhibits seven
months after the deadline. Defendant opposes this motion. Defendant

13
Id. at 1.
14
Id. at 2.
15
R. Doc. 18 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 5 of 11

6

objects to the motion on a number of grounds, including that (1) the Court’s
scheduling order excludes the use at trial of witnesses and exhibits by a party
that has not abided by the required deadlines absent a showing of good
cause,
16
and good cause is absent here;
17
and (2) plaintiffs failed to respond
to defendant’s motion in limine and should not now be able to do so four
months late.
18

In addition, defendant objects to plaintiffs’ proposed witness and
exhibit list on the ground that it includes a witness and several types of
evidence not included in plaintiffs’ initial disclosures to defendant under
Rule 26(a) or in any subsequent disclosures under Rule 26(e).
19
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a), 26(e). Proposed witness Alexis Leblanc was not included in
plaintiffs’ initial disclosure and is now included on the proposed witness list
(without the information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)).
20
Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(i). In addition, plaintiffs initially disclosed two categories of
exhibits: (1) “[c]opies of paychecks and/or time records in possession of
plaintiffs” and (2) “[t]ext messages relative to employment with defendant in

16
See R. Doc. 7-1 at 5; R. Doc. 26-1 at 5.
17
R. Doc. 36 at 2–5.
18
Id. at 5–8.
19
Id. at 9–10.
20
R. Doc. 36-1 at 2; R. Doc. 33-1 at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 6 of 11

7

possession of plaintiffs.”
21
Now, plaintiffs’ proposed exhibit list includes new
categories of evidence (“[p]hotographs in possession of either plaintiff” and
“social media screenshots”) and a category that includes tip and sales
reports.
22

In its scheduling order, the Court stated that it “will not permit any
witness, expert or fact, to testify or any exhibits to be used unless there has
been compliance with this Order as it pertains to the witness and/or exhibits,
without an order to do so issued on motion for good cause shown.”
23
Under
Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may modify
the scheduling order “only for good cause.” There are four factors to consider
when determining whether good cause exists: “(1) the explanation for the
failure to timely comply with the scheduling order; (2) the importance of the
modification; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the modification; and (4)
the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Squyres v. Heico
Cos., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation modified).
By failing to file a witness and exhibit list by the deadline, plaintiffs
have not complied with the scheduling order. The Court therefore must

21
R. Doc. 36-1 at 3.
22
R. Doc. 33-1 at 1–2.
23
R. Doc. 7 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 7 of 11

8

determine if there is good cause to modify the order to allow plaintiffs to
submit their proposed witness and exhibit list despite their noncompliance.
Regarding the first “good cause” factor, plaintiffs do not have a
reasonable explanation for the failure to timely comply with the scheduling
order. Putting aside plaintiffs’ initial failure to meet a slew of deadlines (for
which plaintiffs’ counsel has already been sanctioned) until confronted with
defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs never responded to defendant’s
subsequent motion in limine. Instead, plaintiffs waited another four months
after the filing of the motion in limine, and more than three months after the
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, to seek leave to file their witness
and exhibit list. This is simply more of the same from plaintiffs.
Regarding the second “good cause” factor, a modification of the
scheduling order to permit the filing of a witness and exhibit list is necessary
to plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute their case. Without the ability to call any
witnesses or present any evidence, plaintiffs cannot make any case at all. The
Court concludes that plaintiffs should not be foreclosed entirely from
proceeding against defendant.
But defendant would face unfair prejudice if plaintiffs were allowed to
call a witness and present exhibits that have now been identified for the very
first time on the eve of trial. Plaintiffs have not provided the new witness’s
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 8 of 11

9

contact information or an explanation of the information about which that
witness would be called to testify. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Nor have
they identified the exhibits in a way that would indicate what they are—
business records of defendant, or documents created by plaintiffs, and
photographs and screenshots of what? And, of particular importance,
plaintiffs did not identify this witness and these exhibits during discovery.
Plaintiffs’ assertion that defendant would not be prejudiced because
“Defendant made their own litigation decision not to propound discovery
during the period established by the Court”
24
largely misses the point. Had
plaintiffs abided by their duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) to
update their disclosures, defendant may have chosen to propound discovery
relating to those disclosures. Discovery has long since closed, depriving
defendant of the opportunity to investigate the new evidence plaintiffs seek
to include on their witness and exhibit list. Use of this witness and these
exhibits at trial would be unfairly prejudicial to defendant.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that defendant would not be prejudiced
if plaintiffs were allowed to use the proposed witnesses and exhibits that
were included in their Rule 26 disclosure. Defendant has long been on notice

24
R. Doc. 33 at 6.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 9 of 11

10

about this evidence and had the opportunity to conduct discovery related to
it.
Finally, regarding the fourth “good cause” factor, no continuance is
sought, nor is one appropriate.
Weighing these four factors, the Court finds that plaintiffs have shown
good cause to file their proposed witness and exhibit list only as to (1) Jordan
Buckey; (2) William Trevor; (3) text messages in plaintiffs’ possession; (4)
paychecks and stubs in plaintiffs’ possession; and (5) time records in
plaintiffs’ possession.
25

Therefore, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their
witness and exhibit list only as to the witnesses and exhibits the Court listed
above. The Court denies defendant’s motion in limine with respect to these
witnesses and these exhibits.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART defendant’s
motion in limine and GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file
witness and exhibit lists.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for plaintiffs shall furnish
plaintiffs with copies of both this Court’s order imposing sanctions on

25
See R. Doc. 36-1 at 3–4; R. Doc. 33-1 at 1–2.
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 10 of 11

11
plaintiffs’ counsel
26
and the present order to ensure that plaintiffs are aware
of these proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
R. Doc. 25.
4th
Case 2:25-cv-00747-SSV-MBN Document 37 Filed 08/04/26 Page 11 of 11