What's New...
What's New
September 2026 This is a recent motion related to a lawsuit for property damage resulting from Hurricane Ida in August 2021. The property owner had a policy issued by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. The property owner alleges that payments received from Underwriters were inadequate to cover hurricane damages. The motion was filed by the plaintiff property owner to filed on August 6, 2026 in an effort to exclude testimony from an engineering expert who was not on the original witness and exhibit list.
The basis for the motion is Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule, in part, states that a court may issue “any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Despite the power granted to a federal court through Rule 16, the Louisiana District Court here also pointed out that trial courts, however, have “broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose” of a scheduling order.
The Louisiana federal district court here outlined four factors that Fifth Circuit courts may consider in a decision to exclude a witness. These include (1) the explanation for the failure to identify the witness, (2) the importance of the testimony, (3) potential prejudice in allowing the testimony, and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.
The court here ruled in favor of the defendant insurer. Because there was time for the engineering expert to be deposed prior to trial, there was no need for a continuance to prevent prejudice to the plaintiff property owner. Factor number for on the list applied by the Fifth Circuit, availability of a continuance to cure prejudice, is neutral. Since the engineering expert's testimony was important to the defendant insurance carrier's case, the defendant was permitted to submit an amended list identifying the engineer. Case Reference: Splendid Dwelling, LLC, as plaintiff, v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Defendant; Civil Action No. 23-3240, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
The basis for the motion is Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule, in part, states that a court may issue “any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Despite the power granted to a federal court through Rule 16, the Louisiana District Court here also pointed out that trial courts, however, have “broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose” of a scheduling order.
The Louisiana federal district court here outlined four factors that Fifth Circuit courts may consider in a decision to exclude a witness. These include (1) the explanation for the failure to identify the witness, (2) the importance of the testimony, (3) potential prejudice in allowing the testimony, and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.
The court here ruled in favor of the defendant insurer. Because there was time for the engineering expert to be deposed prior to trial, there was no need for a continuance to prevent prejudice to the plaintiff property owner. Factor number for on the list applied by the Fifth Circuit, availability of a continuance to cure prejudice, is neutral. Since the engineering expert's testimony was important to the defendant insurance carrier's case, the defendant was permitted to submit an amended list identifying the engineer. Case Reference: Splendid Dwelling, LLC, as plaintiff, v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Defendant; Civil Action No. 23-3240, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
