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

Filing 95

ORDER requesting status update re 69 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on May 14, 2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2015)

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,

) Case No. 13-cv-03499-SC
)
) ORDER REQUESTING STATUS UPDATE
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE )
COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS
)
INSURANCE CORPORATION; et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

On February 24, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff Navigators

20

Specialty Insurance Company's ("Navigators") request under Federal

21

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to postpone ruling on Defendants St.

22

Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and Travelers

23

Property Casualty Company of America's ("Travelers") motion for

24

summary judgment.

25

a status update by March 6, 2015 as to whether the necessary

26

additional discovery had been completed.

27

requested update on March 4, explaining that the discovery was not

28

yet complete.

ECF No. 86 ("56(d) Order").

The Court requested

The parties filed the

1

Since then, the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of

2

Defendant Travelers with prejudice.

3

have also filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment

4

regarding the duty to defend.

5

ECF Nos. 88, 89.

The parties

See ECF Nos. 90, 93.

The parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer and file
statement of no more than ten (10) pages explaining the status of

8

United States District Court

within ten (10) days of the signature date of this Order a joint

7
For the Northern District of California

6

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

9

parties should explain (1) whether and how the dismissal of

The

10

Defendant Travelers affects the motion; and (2) whether and how the

11

intervening cross-motions for summary judgment affect the original

12

summary judgment motion.

13

original summary judgment motion, they should also (3) update the

14

Court on the status of the additional discovery that Plaintiff

15

requested; and (4) suggest a supplemental briefing schedule for the

16

original summary judgment motion that permits the parties to fairly

17

and adequately address the new discovery.

If the parties still seek a ruling on the

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: May 14, 2015

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2