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)

Download PDF
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?