Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Snider et al

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING 44 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 11/9/12. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOWARD SNIDER; PAM SNIDER;
JEFF BEALE HOMES and JEFF BEALE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-215-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Howard and Pam Sniders’ Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order (Doc. #44) filed on November 8, 2012. In this motion, the Sniders direct
the Court to “certain oversights” contained in its Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. #43).
In particular, the Sniders point out that the Amended Scheduling Order, which continued
only the dispositive motion deadline in this matter (as this was the only deadline Plaintiff
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company sought to extend in its Motion
to Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. #33)), does not extend the discovery deadline, the
deadline to amend pleadings, and the deadline to disclose experts witnesses, all of which
have already expired. While the Sniders are correct in this assessment, they have failed to
acknowledge that this predicament is of their own making. Indeed, the Sniders claim that
their “only concern” in this matter “was the issue of the duty to indemnify in the event the
Sniders ultimately obtained a judgment against Beale,” yet they successfully moved to
dismiss the duty to indemnify claim in February 2012. (Doc. #44, ¶4.) Thus, in effect, the

Sniders are now complaining to the Court that the current Scheduling Order denies them of
the opportunity to obtain discovery in this case on the duty to indemnify by establishing a
discovery deadline at a time when this claim was not before the Court by their own motion.
Moreover, given the nature of this action and the fact that the duty to indemnify claim was
pending for almost a year before it was dismissed, the Court finds tenuous the Sniders’
claims that they have not conducted any discovery on Plaintiff’s duty to indemnify the Beale
Defendants in the event that a judgment is (and, at this point, has been) entered against them
in the underlying state court litigation.
That being said, the Court nevertheless finds that fairness does warrant extending
certain deadlines addressed in the Sniders’ motion. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Sniders’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. #44) is GRANTED. A revised
scheduling order will be entered separately.
DONE this the 9th day of November, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
United States District Court Judge