Exigence LLC v. Catlin Underwriting Agency US Inc et al

Filing 44

ORDER that the joint motion for protective order 36 38 is GRANTED to the extent that the parties are directed to postpone the depositions of corporate representatives until the Court decides Deft Baylark's motion to compel 41 ; granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines 34 ; Discovery due by 8/1/2010; Motions due by 9/1/2010; the Jury Trial scheduled for 11/1/10 is CONTINUED, and a new trial date will be set by separate order. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 6/1/10. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

EXIGENCE LLC Plaintiff V. CATLIN UNDERWRITING AGENCY US, Inc., ET AL. Defendants

* * * * * * * * *

NO: 4:09CV00915 SWW

ORDER Plaintiff Exigence LLC ("Exigence") brings this action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding duties owed under an insurance policy. Before the Court is Exigence's motion for a protective order (docket entry #36), which is joined by Defendants Catlin Underwriting Agency US, Inc. and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (docket entry #38). Defendant Courtney Baylark has filed a response (docket entry #39), and Exigence has filed a reply (docket entry #43). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for a protective order (docket entries #36, #38) is GRANTED to the extent that the parties are directed to postpone the depositions of corporate representatives until such time as the Court decides Defendant Baylark's motion to compel (docket entry #41). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' joint motion for an extension of deadlines (docket entry #34) is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is hereby extended to August 1, 2010, and the motions deadline is extended to September 1, 2010. Because the extended deadlines do

not allow sufficient time for a decision on dispositive motions before the November 1, 2010 trial date, the trial date is CONTINUED, and a new trial date will be set by separate order.1 IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2010. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

By text entry order dated May 18, 2010, the Court advised the parties that the agreed, proposed deadlines set forth in the joint motion to extend time did not allow sufficient time for a decision on dispositive motions before trial. The parties have not provided the Court notice that they agree to a continuance of the trial date. However, in light of the current discovery dispute, it is clear that the current deadlines are unworkable and that extended deadlines and a continuance of the trial date are unavoidable. 2

1