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)

MAILED