Imel et al v. Prudential Insurance Company of America The

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER re 34 , 38 . All discovery in this matter is CLOSED except the Nussbaum and Selking depositions which must be completed by June 30, 2016. The Motion to Quash is therefore GRANTED and the Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED simply because it is unnecessary in lightof the fact that discovery is closed and therefore no further deposition notices other than for Nussbaum and Selking should be forthcoming. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 6/8/2016. (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF DAVID L. IMEL and )
SHARON IMEL,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
)
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CAUSE NO. 1:15CV69

OPINION AND ORDER
Before me is Defendant’s Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order and
the supplement thereto (DE’s 33-34, 38-39). For the following reasons, the motion will
be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. the Motion to Quash will be GRANTED and the
Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED as moot in light of my finding, discussed
below, that fact discovery in this matter is closed.
On April 14, 2016, I held a status hearing after discovery in this matter had
closed. (DE 31.) During that hearing, counsel for both parties informed me that two
expert depositions – a treating physician, Dr. Nussbaum, and a nurse practitioner, Ms.
Selking – remained outstanding. (DE 33-1 at 7-8.) As I indicated to the parties, I was
surprised to learn of these depositions considering that the purpose of this status
hearing was to set the dispositive briefing schedule and trial date once discovery was
closed, and since the discovery deadline had come and gone with no request from

counsel to extend it to either the magistrate judge or me, I thought it was closed. (DE
33-1 at 5.) Since the parties represented to me that only these two depositions remained,
I told them, “Ordinarily, I would just kick this matter back to the magistrate and have
her re-issue a brightline order, but I’m gonna dispense with that. What I’m gonna tell
you is have these remaining two depositions done by the end of June.” (DE 33-1 at 8-9.)
In the meantime, Plaintiff has issued two deposition notices to a fact witness at
the defendant insurance company. She is not an expert witness and was not one of the
remaining depositions disclosed to me. Plaintiff has not sought to reopen discovery.
Defendant seeks to quash the notice on the basis that fact discovery – and, indeed, any
discovery beyond the two depositions identified at the April 14 hearing – is closed and
in any event, the notice failed to comply with the 14-day notice requirement in our local
rules, among other defects. (See L.R. 30-1.) Plaintiff admits its first notice didn’t comply
with our local rules and states it has corrected the errors in the second notice. (DE 40.)
But this misses the first point: discovery in this matter, with the exception of the
Nussbaum and Selking depositions is closed. Plaintiff points to what it contends is an
order I issued on April 14 saying that the “Court orders that the depositions must be
completed by the end of June 2016.” (DE 40 citing DE 31) What Plaintiff is actually
quoting isn’t an order at all, but is rather a docket entry summarizing what I ordered
orally during the hearing. And my oral order was clear: discovery was closed other
than the two remaining depositions identified to me by the parties.

2

In any event, lest there be any further confusion, let me be explicit: all discovery
in this matter is CLOSED except the Nussbaum and Selking depositions which must be
completed by June 30, 2016. The Motion to Quash is therefore GRANTED and the
Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED simply because it is unnecessary in light
of the fact that discovery is closed and therefore no further deposition notices other than
for Nussbaum and Selking should be forthcoming.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 8, 2016
s/Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3