Lyman et al v. Asbestos Defendants (B*P) et al
Filing
151
CASE MANAGEMENT AND DISCOVERY ORDER (Motions terminated: 147 MOTION for Extension of Time). Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/05/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LYMAN, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-04240-WHO
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
CASE MANAGEMENT AND
DISCOVERY ORDER
9
10
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 141
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Having settled the underlying asbestos action, Union Carbide Corporation and Montello
13
Corporation appeared this afternoon at a case management conference to discuss a schedule for the
14
cross-claims filed by Montello against Union Carbide. In this regard, Montello has filed a motion
15
for summary judgment and Union Carbide has moved to extend time for briefing and hearing so
16
that it can conduct discovery relevant to Montello’s motion. After the discussion at the
17
conference, the Court ORDERS the following:
18
1. It is apparent that the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release dated November
19
19, 2009 between Montello, Allen Johnson, Leo A. Wooldridge and The Travelers
20
Indemnity Company, et. al., is material to Union Carbide’s opposition to Montello’s
21
motion. Montello shall produce it within 15 days unless The Travelers Indemnity
22
Company files an objection with the Court prior to that time. Counsel for Montello is
23
directed to notify The Travelers Indemnity Company of this Order immediately, to
24
provide it with a copy of this Order no later than August 6, 2014, and to file a
25
certification with the Court describing the manner in which notification occurred no
26
later than August 7, 2014. Because of the nature of the on-going nationwide litigation
27
in which the parties are involved, disclosure of the document in its entirety would be
28
harmful to the parties and would not be relevant to the other litigation. The material
1
terms of the document may be sealed, subject to the Court’s review. Further, to the
2
extent any questions regarding the document are asked and answered at the depositions
3
described later in this Order, those portions of the transcripts may also be sealed.
4
2. Montello has agreed to make documents available in Tulsa, Oklahoma that Union
5
Carbide has already requested within 15 days of this Order. If appropriate, Montello
6
may designate these documents as confidential as well, subject to the Court’s review
7
when the motion(s) for summary judgment are litigated. It is so ordered.
8
9
10
3. Montello has agreed to produce for deposition its president, Allen Johnson, and its
lawyer, Andrew S. Hartman, within 30 days. It is so ordered.
4. Union Carbide shall file its opposition (and any cross-motion) within 45 days of the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
completion of the final deposition. Montello shall have ten days for its reply. As long
12
as this schedule is kept, and the Court has at least two weeks between the reply and the
13
hearing, the hearing shall be set on November 19, 2014. In the event that the volume
14
of discovery produced by Montello makes it impractical for the depositions to proceed
15
as contemplated, the parties shall file a stipulated revised hearing schedule for the
16
Court’s review.
17
5. In the event the case does not resolve on summary judgment, trial is set for April 13,
18
2015. The pretrial conference is set for 2 p.m. on March 23, 2015. The last day for
19
fact discovery, and the day to disclose experts, is December 1, 2014. Rebuttal experts
20
shall be disclosed by December 22, 2014, and the last day for expert discovery is
21
January 30, 2014.
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?