I find that the trial court abused its discretion and disregarded the time constraints and mandates of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966 by granting Plaintiffs’ motion to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to allow for further discovery after the time deadline for filing an opposition had passed. Although Plaintiffs asserted that additional time was needed to depose their accident reconstruction exert, the expert had been retained by Plaintiffs in January 2019; therefore, Plaintiffs had over four-and-one-half years to obtain the experts opinion prior to the September 25, 2023 hearing date. Further, Plaintiffs did not indicate they needed more time to file a response when they filed their opposition and did not seek to continue the hearing until two days prior to the hearing date.
For these reasons, I find that the trial courts continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was an abuse of its discretion under La.Code Civ. P. art. 966(C)(2), as Plaintiffs failed to show good cause therefor. Therefore, I would grant this writ, reverse the lower courts’ rulings and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
GENOVESE, J., would grant this writ for the following reasons: