govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cv-01395-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
ADI RAIBSTEIN PERALTA CIVIL ACTION  
VERSUS NO. 23-1395 c/w 23-3073 
SUPREME OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 
ET AL. 
SECTION: “P” (4) 
O
RDER AND REASONS 
Before the Court is the  Motion for Extension of Expert Report Deadline 1 filed by 
Defendant, Supreme Offshore Services, Inc. (“Supreme”).  The motion was set for submission on 
March 11, 2026.2  Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days 
before the noticed submission date, making March 3, 2025 the deadline in this instance.  
Plaintiff Adi Raibstein Peralta did not file an opposition to the motion.  Accordingly, because 
the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,3 
1 R. Doc. 68.   
2 R. Doc. 68-2. 
3 Supreme moves this Court to extend the defense expert report deadline by 30 days to permit time for its vocational 
rehabilitation expert to conduct  an independent vocational rehabilitation examination of Plaintiff  prior to preparing 
his or her expert report. Defendant s’ expert report deadline is curren tly March 16, 2026. Supreme contends its 
vocational rehabilitation expert  timely requested the vocational rehabilitation exam in January and that Supreme’ s 
counsel sent two follow -up emails in February that went unanswered. After the parties discussed the Plaintiff ’s 
objections to the examination in person in mid-to-late February, they were unable to reach a resolution, and Supreme 
filed a motion to compel the evaluation . That motion is also set for submission on March 11, 2026. Supreme avers it 
is prejudiced from meeting the current expert report deadline as a result of Plaintiff ’s failure to attend the vocational 
rehabilitation evaluation and the resulting motion to compel, which is currently pending.   
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be  modified for good cause 
and with the judge’s consent.   F ED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4).  To show good cause, the party seeking to modify the 
scheduling order must 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 of Ala., N A, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting 6A 
Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 (2d ed. 1990)).  In considering such requests, 
courts in the Fifth Circuit examine four factors: “(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).  
The Court finds Supreme has satisfied the good cause standard based upon the showing in its motion. There 
being no timely objection to Supreme ’s motion, the C ourt sua sponte considered the potential prejudice in allowing 
the modification, and the Court concludes  the only prejudice is to Plaintiff’s ability to meet its rebuttal expert report 
Case 2:23-cv-01395-DJP-KWR     Document 69     Filed 03/04/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
IT IS ORDERED that Supreme’s Motion for Extension of Expert Report Deadline  (R. 
Doc. 68) is GRANTED.  
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order (R. Doc. 45) is MODIFIED , 
and the following expert report deadlines are EXTENDED as set forth below: 
• Written reports of experts, as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
26(a)(2)(B), who may be witnesses for Defendants, shall be obtained and delivered to 
counsel for Plaintiff as  soon as possible, but in no event later than A PRIL 15, 2026. 
This deadline shall also apply to all expert disclosures, as defined by the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). 
• Written rebuttal reports of experts, as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  
26(a)(2)(B), who may be witnesses for Plaintiffs, shall be obtained and delivered to 
counsel for Defendant no later than MAY 14, 2026. Plaintiff is cautioned that rebuttal 
reports should be  strictly limited to opinions in response to the Defendant ’s expert 
reports. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Order 
remain unaffected by this Order.  
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of March 2026. 
 
______________________________________ 
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
deadline, which is currently April 14, 2026. Nevertheless, the Court finds this prejudice can be cured by also extending 
Plaintiff’s rebuttal deadline by 30 days. Accordingly, the Court grants Supreme ’s motion and extends the defense 
expert report deadline and the rebuttal expert report deadline as set forth herein.  
 
 
Case 2:23-cv-01395-DJP-KWR     Document 69     Filed 03/04/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight