Full text
Mary Hotard Becnel, as Independent of the Succession of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. Versus Camilo K. Salas III
MARY HOTARD BECNEL, AS INDEPENDENT NO. 24-C-556 EXECUTRIX OF THE SUCCESSION OF DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
CAMILO K. SALAS III STATE OF LOUISIANA
February 10, 2025
Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk
IN RE CAMILO K. SALAS III
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. KIRBY, JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 70,582
Panel composed of Judges Stephen J. Windhorst, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel
WRIT DENIED
In this writ application, defendant/relator, Camilo K. Salas, seeks review of the trial court’s ruling, on the trial court’s own motion, to re-open discovery 18 months after the April 28, 2023 discovery deadline had expired.
A trial judge has broad discretion in regulating pre-trial discovery, which discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Bell v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 06-1538 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 654, 656. In order to insure for an orderly disposition of cases, a trial judge is given broad discretion to determine whether or not to modify a pretrial order. McDuffie v. AC & S, Inc., 00-2779 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01), 781 So.2d 628, 631.
It is well-settled that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s great discretion to grant a continuance except in extreme cases. Wild v. Standard Gen. Realty Co., 145 So. 58, 59 (La. Ct. App. 1932), aff’d, 177 La. 664, 149 So. 114 (1933). While recognizing the much discretion which is vested in a trial judge in the matter of granting or refusing continuances, that discretion is not absolute and may not be exercised arbitrarily. Reviewing courts are vested with the right and duty to correct such errors by the trial judge in matters of this kind. However, appellate courts should only interfere in such matters with reluctance and in what are considered extreme cases. Sauce v. Bussell, 298 So.2d 832, 834 (La. 1974).
The trial court’s scheduling order at issue in this case is not attached to the writ application, but for the purposes of this disposition, we assume the allegations regarding the history of this case to be correct. We consider that the trial court’s action amounted to a modification of the court’s own scheduling order, as permitted by McDuffie, supra, and we do not consider this to be an “extreme” case requiring our intervention. We decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction at this time.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of February, 2025.
SJW JJM SUS
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 02/10/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
24-C-556 E-NOTIFIED 40th District Court (Clerk) Honorable Michael E. Kirby (DISTRICT JUDGE) Honorable Vercell Fiffie (DISTRICT JUDGE) Camilo K. Salas, III (Relator) Kevin P. Klibert (Respondent)