Case 5:09-cv-02103-TS-MLH Document 117 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3452

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION GREGORY WILLIS Plaintiff, Versus CLECO CORPORATION Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:09-cv-02103 DISTRICT JUDGE TOM STAGG MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK L. HORNSBY

JOINT STATUS REPORT GREGORY WILLIS NOW COMES Cleco Corporation (Cleco) and Plaintiff, Gregory Willis, and submit this Joint Status Report stating as follows: 1. Gregory Willis remaining claims include retaliation claims in 2007 for placement on a work improvement plan and for the issuance of a written disciplinary warning. 2. Witnesses of Cleco with knowledge of Mr. Willis claims include Ed Taylor and John Melancon. 3. Cleco respectfully requests that the Court set March 30, 2012 as the deadline by which Mr. Willis may depose the above individuals and by which Cleco may take the second deposition of Mr. Willis to obtain information regarding his remaining claims. In this regard, the control of discovery and the determination of whether a party should be required to submit to a second deposition is left to the trial courts sound discretion, and a courts discovery rulings can only be reversed where they are arbitrary or clearly unreasonable. See Plaisance v. Beef Connection

Case 5:09-cv-02103-TS-MLH Document 117 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3453

Steakhouse, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6389, at *5 (E.D. La. May 1, 1998); Mayo v. Tri-bell Indus., Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C), a party opposing a second deposition must demonstrate: 1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; 2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought; or 3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. Plaisance, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6389 at *4-5. Because Cleco seeks a second deposition reasonably limited in time by the Court and for the limited purpose of questioning Mr. Willis regarding his remaining claims, Mr. Willis cannot legitimately claim that a second deposition would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or that any minor expense associated with the same outweighs the importance of determining the precise allegations of his claims. 4. Cleco respectfully requests the Court to set April 30, 2012 as the deadline by which Cleco may file a motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Willis remaining claims. Based on the nature of Mr. Willis remaining claims and the Courts previous ruling on Clecos Motion for Summary Judgment, Cleco believes that some or all of Mr. Willis remaining claims may be dismissed in their entirety. If so, any remaining issues to be presented to a jury will be

substantially narrowed or the need for trial eliminated altogether. See Calpetco 1981 v. Marshall Exploration, Inc., 989 F.2d 1408, 1415 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating [s]ummary judgment, pursuant to the simple procedures established by Rule 56, serves, among other ways, to root out, narrow, and

Case 5:09-cv-02103-TS-MLH Document 117 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3454

focus the issues, if not resolve them completely and that partial motions can lessen the length and complexity of trial on remaining issues all to the advantage of the litigants, the courts, those waiting in line for trial, and the American public in general); Moores Federal Practice, 56.121 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (recognizing multiple motions for summary judgment may be a powerful case-management tool in multi-party actions and that the scope of actions may be narrowed through a series of the same). Reducing the number of disputed issues also would alleviate potential confusion of the jurors. It further would serve the interest of judicial economy and minimize any unnecessary expenses, costs, and attorneys fees. See Moores Federal

Practice, 56.121 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (permitting multiple motions for summary judgment can be economical and promote judicial efficiency). 5. Plaintiff opposes any additional discovery in this matter. Defendants had ample opportunity to depose any and all witnesses in this case. Indeed Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff. The court on March 17, 2010 ordered all parties to promptly begin discovery. On June 12, 2010, the court issued a scheduling order setting the filing of dispositive motions by October 12, 2010. Defendants had seven months to depose Plaintiff as many times at it needed to prepare its defense. Plaintiff deposed over 20 witnesses during the discovery period at great cost. To require Plaintiff to now pay the cost of his attorneys to travel to Louisiana for another deposition and pay all other cost associated with taking of deposition is a needless burden. Defendant has failed to list any new evidence or witnesses in this case that would warrant burdening Plaintiff with the cost of additional depositions. Plaintiff reminds the court it allowed Defendant against the strong objections of Plaintiff to file a Reply Brief to Plaintiff Memorandum In Opposition to

Case 5:09-cv-02103-TS-MLH Document 117 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3455

Defendant Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendant is simply trying to get a third bite at its Motion For Summary Judgment. 6. Plaintiff objects to any further delays in case and request that the court set a trial date within in the next two months. Respectfully submitted this the 14th day of October 2011. /s/ MARTIN J. REGIMBAL Martin J. Regimbal (Miss. #102507) (Pro Hac Vice) The Kullman Firm A Professional Law Corporation Suite 704, Court Square Towers 200 6th Street North Post Office Box 827 Columbus, MS 39701 Tel: (662) 244-8824 Fax: (662) 244-8837 mjr@kullmanlaw.com /s/ CHARLES H. HOLLIS Charles H. Hollis (La. #06961) The Kullman Firm A Professional Law Corporation 1100 Poydras Street 1600 Energy Centre Post Office Box 60118 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Telephone: 504-596-4189 chh@kullmanlaw.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CLECO CORPORATION /s/ LARRY ENGLISH English & Associates, LLC 415 Texas Street, Suite 320 Shreveport, LA 71101 Tel.: (318) 222-1900 Fax.: (318) 222-1660 englishlaw2008@gmail.com Albert Van-Lare 80 Wall Street, 3rd Floor New York, New York 10005 Tel.: (212) 608-1400 Fax.: (212) 608-9347 vanlareesq@aol.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:09-cv-02103-TS-MLH Document 117 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3456

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 14th day of October 2011, the undersigned electronically filed the foregoing Joint Status Report Gregory Willis with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Larry English English & Associates, LLC 415 Texas Street, Suite 320 Shreveport, LA 71101 Tel.: (318) 222-1900 Fax.: (318) 222-1660 Englishlaw2008@gmail.com Albert Van-Lare 80 Wall Street, 3rd Fl. New York, NY 10005 Tel.: (212) 608-1400 Fax.: (212) 608-9347 vanlareesq@aol.com

/s/ MARTIN J. REGIMBAL MARTIN J. REGIMBAL