Lima LS plc v. PHL Variable Insurance Company et al

Filing 149

RULING/ORDER Re: July 15, 2014, Conference. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 7/30/14.(Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LIMA LS PLC
v.
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL

:
:
:
: CIV. NO. 3:12CV1122(WWE)
:
:
:
:
:

RULING/ORDER RE: JULY 15, 2014, CONFERENCE
This ruling and order memorializes the Court’s rulings made
during a case management/discovery conference held on the record
on July 15, 2014.
Plaintiff’s Discovery
1. Conference Call between IT Personnel and ESI Discovery
Regarding Agenda Items Nos. 1 and 2: The parties will
schedule a telephone conference with the technology personnel on
both sides to confer regarding the search method utilized on
HP’s archival system. Defendants should endeavor to schedule
this call within fourteen days.
The parties will commence production. Production should not
be delayed until after the IT conference call.

1

As set forth at the conference, the parties should begin
production, continue review of documents and continue to meet
and confer regarding the reasonable resources devoted to
document review, rather than argue an abstract notion of
insufficient production.

Ultimately, it is up to each side to

produce documents responsive to the pending discovery requests.
The parties will report back on their progress at the next
conference.
2. Third-Party Discovery Materials
Plaintiff will provide notice to third parties that it will
be using discovery materials obtained in other litigation
between Phoenix and U.S. Bank and/or Lima.

The notice should

also state that the third party may seek relief before this
Court by filing a motion.
Defendants’ Discovery
1. Fenton/Binday/Wilmington Savings Cases
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 60-61: Defendants
will provide the Court with an existing document(s),
agreement(s), or order(s) that indicates the scope of production
in these three cases. Defendants do not need to create an
inventory of the document production in these cases.

2

Defendants

will provide a copy of the complaint, answer and settlement
agreement/confidentiality order in Fenton for in camera review.
2. Requests for Production
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 33: Defendants will
provide a copy of the Court’s discovery order in the Linz case.
Plaintiff’s Request for Production Nos. 53-55: Plaintiff
will file a letter brief by July 22, 2014. Defendants’ response
is due on July 29, 2014.
Defendants’ Request for Production No. 133: Plaintiff
agreed to produce these documents.
Defendants’ Requests for Production Nos. 144-45, 139: As a
preliminary step, plaintiff will produce communications with
investors regarding the funds. The parties will revisit this
issue at a later date.
3. Interrogatories
Interrogatories Nos. 16, 17, 23, and 24: Defendants are
entitled to know the identities of the “investors,” “others,”
and “policy holders” referenced in the Amended Complaint and the
identity of the policy holders who Lima alleges were forced to
sell their policies. Plaintiff will produce documents and
information provided to prospective investors in the fund,
including representations made by the fund manager. Plaintiff
3

will provide responses to these interrogatories and reference by
Bates Stamp number any documents that are responsive to these
interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 26: Plaintiff will provide additional
information.
Interrogatory No. 27: The parties will look at the
documents and revisit whether Lima should amend its
interrogatory response at another time.
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures re: Damages:

Plaintiff

will continue to supplement all categories of its damages
calculation as part of the initial disclosure.
Scheduling Order
Discovery is set to close on May 15, 2015, and dispositive
motions are due by July 15, 2015. [Doc. #126].
The parties will contact the Court if any issues arise that
may delay the progress of this case, before these deadlines
expire.
August 19, 2014, Conference
The next case management/discovery conference will be held
on August 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM. The parties will provide a joint
agenda by the close of business August 14, 2014. The agenda may
be submitted to the law clerk at:
[e-mail]

4

This is not a recommended ruling.

This is a discovery

ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly
erroneous" statutory standard of review.

28 U.S.C. '636

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.

As such,

it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
district judge upon motion timely made.

ENTERED at Bridgeport this 30th day of July 2014.

________/s/__________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5