Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. St Paul Surplus Lines Insurance et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting Plaintiff's request for supplemental briefing on 69 motion for summary judgment and granting parties' request to extend the expert disclosure deadline by thirty (30) days after the Court's ruling on 69 motion for summary judgment. Within seven (7) days of the signature date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a supplemental brief of not more than five (5) pages explaining how the facts uncovered in Ms. Friedlin's deposition affect the is sue of whether California Financial acted as Defendant St. Paul's agent. Defendant St. Paul may submit a supplemental brief on this issue of not more than five (5) pages within seven (7) days of Navigators' submission. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/27/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE )
COMPANY, LIBERTY SURPLUS
)
INSURANCE CORPORATION, TRAVELERS )
PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF
)
AMERICA, NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1
)
through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03499 SC
ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING FOR DEFENDANT ST.
PAUL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND EXTENDING THE
EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

18
19

Now before the Court is Defendants St. Paul Surplus Lines

20

Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and Travelers Property Casualty

21

Company of America's ("Travelers") motion for summary judgment.

22

ECF No. 69.

23

("Navigators") theory of St. Paul's liability hinges on the status

24

of St. Paul's insurance broker, California Financial, as St. Paul's

25

agent.

26

Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company's

On February 24, 2015, the Court granted Navigators request to

27

continue the summary judgment motion pending additional discovery

28

regarding California Financial's status as St. Paul's agent.

ECF.

confer and file a joint statement explaining the status of

3

Defendants' original motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69),

4

including (1) whether and how the dismissal of Defendant Travelers

5

(ECF Nos. 88, 89) affects the motion; (2) whether and how the

6

intervening cross-motions for summary judgment regarding Defendant

7

North American Capacity Insurance Company's ("NAC") duty to defend

8

United States District Court

No. 86.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

On May 14, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to meet and

(ECF Nos. 90, 93) affect the original summary judgment motion; (3)

9

an update on the status of the additional discovery that Navigators

10

requested; and (4) a proposed supplemental briefing schedule for

11

the original summary judgment motion that permits the parties to

12

fairly and adequately address the new discovery.

13

ECF No. 95.

Pursuant to the Court's order, Navigators and St. Paul met and

14

conferred and filed a joint status update report.

ECF No. 97.

15

Their joint report responded to the four requests in the Court's

16

May 14 Order as follows: First, given Navigators' dismissal of

17

Travelers (ECF No. 89), the court no longer has to rule on the

18

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) as it pertains to

19

Travelers, but the Court should still rule on the remaining portion

20

of the motion filed by St. Paul.

21

motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant NAC and Plaintiff

22

Navigators (ECF Nos. 90 and 93) do not affect the original motion

23

for summary judgment filed by Defendants Travelers and St. Paul

24

(ECF No. 69).

25

requested is complete, including the deposition of Linda Friedlin

26

and the production of documents from Crouse & Associates.

27

if the Court grants supplemental briefing, the parties suggest that

28

Navigators' supplemental brief be due no later than two weeks from

Second, the intervening cross-

Third, the additional discovery that plaintiff

2

Fourth,

1

the date of the court's order requiring such briefing; and St.

2

Paul's reply be due no later than two weeks from the date of the

3

filing of Navigators' supplemental brief.

4

Navigators believes that supplemental briefing is necessary to

not believe that supplemental briefing is necessary.

7

earlier order, the Court granted Navigator's request for additional

8

United States District Court

address the deposition testimony of Linda Friedlin.

6

For the Northern District of California

5

St. Paul does

discovery because St. Paul's motion for summary judgment turned, in

9

part, on whether California Financial acted as St. Paul's agent.

In its

10

ECF No. 86.

11

complete, supplemental briefing is appropriate so that the Court

12

can make a fully informed ruling.

13

Now that discovery on this important issue is

Plaintiff Navigators is hereby ORDERED to submit to the Court

14

a supplemental brief of not more than five (5) pages explaining how

15

the facts uncovered in Ms. Friedlin's deposition affect the issue

16

of whether California Financial acted as St. Paul's agent.

17

Navigators shall submit their brief within seven (7) days of the

18

signature date of this Order.

19

brief on this issue of not more than five (5) pages within seven

20

(7) days of Navigators' submission.

21

St. Paul may submit a supplemental

The parties also request in their joint report that the Court

22

extend the expert disclosure deadline by thirty (30) days after the

23

Court's ruling on St. Paul's motion for summary judgment.

24

parties request an extension of the deadline because the scope of

25

the Court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment could affect

26

which experts the parties ultimately decide to disclose.

27

parties' request to extend the expert disclosure deadline by thirty

28

(30)days after the Court's ruling on St. Paul's motion for summary

3

The

The

1

judgment is granted.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: May

, 2015

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4