Hernandez v. Frazier, No. SA:11-CV-0009-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2014)(Ezra, J.)

In this patent case involving oil and gas well technology, the District Court extended the dispositive motion deadline seven times at the request of one or both sides. See slip op. at 2. Frazier filed 23 timely motions for partial summary judgment before the last deadline. He then filed a 24th motion six months after the last deadline with leave of court. Id. at 2-3. Ten months after the deadline, he was back at it, seeking leave to file a 25th motion directed to the plaintiffs’ damages claim. Id. at 3. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s four-part standard for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), see S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Ala., N.A., 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003), the District Court found that Frazier’s excuse for delay was unsatisfactory, the motion’s importance was minimal, and the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice by “having to engage in further discovery.” Id. at 8. The District Court assigned little or no weight to the fourth factor—the availability of a continuance as a remedy—because the case had been pending for over three years.” Id. (underscore in original).