Cone et al v. National General Assurance Company

Filing 61

ORDER granting 40 Motion for clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/29/16. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DOUGLAS CONE and
VICKI CONE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. CV415-163
NATIONAL GENERAL
ASSURANCE COMPANY; and
CAMPING TIME RV CENTERS,
d/b/a CAMPING WORLD RV SALES,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is an insurance coverage case arising from storm
damage to the roof of a motor home purchased by plaintiffs Douglas and
Vicki Cone from Camping Time RV Centers, LLC d/b/a Camping World
RV Sales (Camping World). The Cones insured it with National General
Assurance Company (NGAC), against whom they brought this action
after it refused to pay their damage claim. In its November 16, 2015
Order, the Court resolved the parties’ discovery dispute and granted
plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to add Camping World as a defendant. Doc.
39, reported at 2015 WL 7196478. It also directed the parties to present a

revised scheduling order, doc. 39 at 15, and they complied. Doc. 48. The
Court GRANTS NGAC’s motion for clarification (doc. 40) and agrees
with the Cones (doc. 51) that the addition of Camping World as a
defendant extended the expert-witness disclosure and related deadlines
per the Consent Revised Scheduling Order (doc. 48), which means the
Cones timely named their retained and non-retained experts. 1

SO ORDERED , this 29th day of February, 2016.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ILJDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

As the Court previously ruled:
The Court also grants plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery. Doc. 34.
Plaintiffs were awaiting this ruling so they could depose defense witnesses
with the benefit of the withheld documents now ordered disclosed. Doc. 34 at
1; doc. 27 at 1-2. They also have now succeeded in adding Camping World as a
party, and they cite to discovery needed from it. Doc. 34 at 2. Expert witness
needs (plaintiffs may raise a negligence claim against Camping World) are also
in play . Id.

Doc. 39 at 14 (emphasis added). The Court clarifies that, with the addition of a new
defendant and any new analytical wrinkles it may raise, it is fair to extend the
expert-witness disclosure cycle, as has been done here (reflected in the consent
scheduling order, doc. 48).

2