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

Filing 86

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) request and deferring ruling on 69 motion for summary judgment. Within ten (10) days of the signature date of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer and submit to the Court a joint status update of no more than five (5) pages explaining (1) whether the additional discovery is indeed complete (and if not, how long it is expected take); and (2) whether Navigators believes the discovery uncovered additional facts essential to its opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on February 24, 2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)

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

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

) Case No. 13-cv-03499-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(D)
Plaintiff,
) REQUEST
)
v.
)
)
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE )
COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS
)
INSURANCE CORPORATION; et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

17
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

continue the summary judgment motion pending additional discovery

27

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

28

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Navigators' Rule

Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company's

In its opposition, Navigators requests the Court deny or

For

1
2

56(d) request.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) permits the Court to

shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it

5

cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition."

6

prevail under this Rule, a party opposing a motion for summary

7

judgment must make "(a) a timely application which (b) specifically

8

United States District Court

postpone ruling on a motion for summary judgment "[i]f a nonmovant

4

For the Northern District of California

3

identifies (c) relevant information, (d) where there is some basis

9

for believing that the information sought actually exists."

To

Emp'rs

10

Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Clorox Co., 353

11

F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2004).

12

seeking additional discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show

13

that the evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent summary

14

judgment."

15

n.6 (9th Cir. 2001).

16

"The burden is on the party

Chance v. Pac–Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161

Navigators has submitted an affidavit explaining the need for

17

additional discovery.

18

Navigators seeks to depose the employee of St. Paul's California

19

underwriter who allegedly informed St. Paul that it should contact

20

California Financial to determine whether California financial had

21

authority to add an additional insured to the policies issued by

22

St. Paul.

23

documents from California Financial.

24

Id. ¶ 8.

See ECF No. 79-3 ("Silberstein Decl.").

Navigators also seeks the production of
Id. ¶ 9.

St. Paul argues in response that no further discovery is

25

necessary for several reasons.

First, St. Paul argues that this

26

motion comes relatively late in the litigation process (a year and

27

a half after the case was filed), and that Navigators has already

28

had the opportunity to conduct discovery.

2

St. Paul also argues

Navigators for some time.

3

already conducted discovery in this matter, Navigators moved

4

expeditiously to conduct the necessary additional discovery once

5

this motion was filed.

6

discovery cutoff date in this case.

7

argues that Navigators' request for production will not result in

8

United States District Court

that the employee Navigators hopes to depose has been known to

2

For the Northern District of California

1

the production of any new documents, because when service of the

9

subpoena to California Financial was attempted, the process server

While it may be true that Navigators has

Indeed, the Court only recently set the
See ECF No. 85.

St. Paul also

10

was informed that California Financial is no longer in business.

11

See ECF No. 80 ("Reply") at 4-5.

12

unpersuasive. 1

13

the subpoena was unsuccessful does not necessarily mean that

14

Navigators will never be able to locate California Financial's

15

documents.

This argument, too, is

Merely because Navigators' first attempt to serve

The Court finds that Navigators has met the burden required to

16
17

support its Rule 56(d) request.

18

St. Paul's agent (or as the agent of St. Paul's underwriter), there

19

is a reasonable basis to believe that California Financial's

20

documents might reflect that status and that the employee

21

Navigators identified might have supporting evidence.

22

will permit Navigators to conduct additional discovery into this

23

issue before ruling on the summary judgment motion.

26
27
28

The Court

For the reasons set forth above, Navigators' Rule 56(d)

24
25

If California Financial acted as

1

Navigators has objected to St. Paul's submission of the
declaration of non-service of subpoena from the process server who
attempted to contact California Financial. The Court would grant
Navigators' Rule 56(d) request even if it were to consider the
server's statement, so the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on
the evidentiary issue.

3

for summary judgment until additional discovery can be taken.

3

According to the parties' filings, California Financial's documents

4

were supposed to be produced on December 22, 2014, and the

5

depositions relevant to this motion were set for February 12, 2015

6

and February 17, 2015.

7

ten (10) days of the signature date of this Order, the parties

8

United States District Court

request is GRANTED, and the Court will defer ruling on the motion

2

For the Northern District of California

1

shall meet and confer and submit to the Court a joint status update

9

of no more than five (5) pages explaining (1) whether the

See ECF Nos. 79 at 21-22, 83 at 2.

Within

10

additional discovery is indeed complete (and if not, how long it is

11

expected take); and (2) whether Navigators believes the discovery

12

uncovered additional facts essential to its opposition to the

13

motion for summary judgment.

14

complete but did not reveal additional relevant information, the

15

Court will rule on the motion as submitted.

16

discovery did reveal additional relevant information, the Court

17

will set a schedule for the submission of revised opposition and

18

reply briefs.

If the additional discovery is

If the additional

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: February 24, 2015

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

4