Travelers Indemnity Company v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corporation

Filing 143

ORDER and SCHEDULING ORDER removing stay on proceedings and revising case deadlines (see attached) in consideration of 130 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 03/26/2014. (Wang, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY as successor in interest to GULF
INSURANCE COMPANY,

3:11 - CV- 1209 (CSH)

Plaintiff,
v.
EXCALIBUR REINSURANCE
CORPORATION f/k/a CAPITAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,

MARCH 26, 2014

Defendant.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Travelers has filed the present motion [Doc. 130] to modify the Court's previously
entered Scheduling Order [Doc. 67]. Much of the circumstances in existence at that earlier time
have been changed or no longer exist. Specifically, Plaintiff's motion for a prejudgment remedy was
denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion for pre-pleading security was granted; Plaintiff and Defendant
Excalibur agreed upon the amount of security Excalibur should post; and Excalibur has posted that
security. Travelers' present motion correctly asserts that a stay of proceedings is no longer
appropriate.
In consequence, Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 130] to modify the Court's Scheduling Order [Doc.
67] is GRANTED.
The Court makes the following Revised Scheduling Order:
1. All discovery, including expert-witness discovery if any is intended, shall be completed

on or before May 16, 2014.
2. Any dispositive motions shall be filed not later than June 6, 2014.
3. The joint trial memorandum shall be filed on June 30, 2014, or 21 calendar days after the
Court's decision on any dispositive motion, whichever last occurs.
4. The case will be marked Trial Ready seven (7) calendar days after the filing of the joint
trial memorandum.
5. If counsel for the parties are in a position to agree and stipulate at the present time that no
dispositive motions will be filed by either party after completion of discovery, counsel are directed
to advise the Court to that effect forthwith, and a further revision of this Revised Scheduling Order
can then be considered.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
March 26, 2014

/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Senior United States District Judge