NOVELETSKY et al v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INC et al

Filing 158

REPORT OF CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL AND SCHEDULING ORDER By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HOLLIE T. NOVELETSKY et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:12-cv-00021-NT
)
)
)
)
)

REPORT OF CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. the Court held a scheduling
conference to address outstanding motions for summary judgment proposed by the
Plaintiffs and by Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and
Francine Temkin as well as an additional proposed motion for summary judgment
by Defendant Alan Silverman.
Presiding:

Nancy Torresen, United States District Judge

For Plaintiffs:

Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
John J. Cronan, III, Esq.

For Defendant:

John S. Whitman, Esq. (on behalf of Alan Silverman)
Phillip S. Bixby, Esq.
Jonathan M. Dunitz, Esq. (on behalf of Francine Temkin)
Daniel R. Mawhinney Esq.
Elizabeth G. Knox Peck, Esq. (on behalf of MetLife)

1. Basis for Proposed Summary Judgment Motions: In 2001, Plaintiff Hollie
Noveletsky purchased a $5 million whole life insurance policy from MetLife through
Alan Silverman. She placed the policy into an irrevocable life insurance trust
(“ILIT”) and named Francine Temkin as trustee. Her son, Plaintiff Joshua
Rosenthal, is the beneficiary of the trust. Plaintiff Thomas Heaney is the ILIT’s
current trustee. The Plaintiffs claim that the policy was inappropriate for Ms.

Noveletsky’s needs. There are a number of liability and damages issues that both
sides believe may be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.
The parties have also indicated that they may file Daubert motions that
impact their positions on summary judgment.
2. Legal Issues: The Plaintiffs have agreed to review the claims stated in the
operative complaint and, within two weeks of the date of this conference, they will
file a document with the Court indicating which claims each Plaintiff intends to
press against which Defendant(s).
3. Estimated Memorandum Length: The Defendants have agreed to confer
following submission of the Plaintiffs’ document outlining their remaining claims
and to let the Court know the estimated page length of their proposed summary
judgment memoranda. If necessary, the Court will issue a subsequent order setting
memorandum page limits.
For the anticipated Daubert motions, the parties are all limited to 25-page
memoranda; opposing memoranda shall also be no longer than 25 pages; and reply
memoranda, if any, shall not exceed seven pages.
4. Estimated Factual Statement Length: The Court has not required an
estimated length of the parties’ factual statements, but has requested that the
parties’ reply statement of material facts contain the complete outlay of original
facts, responses to original facts, additional facts, and responses to additional facts.
The Defendants have also agreed to work together consolidate their original factual
statements into one document.
5. Estimated Record: The parties have agreed not to refile any record documents
already properly before the Court, but to refer by ECF document and page number
to any such record materials. The Court has not imposed limits on the filing of
additional record materials, and has agreed to allow the parties to submit complete
deposition transcripts.
Following further discussion, I ORDERED that:
1. No later than Thursday, October 24, 2013, the Plaintiffs shall file a
document outlining which claims each Plaintiff intends to press against
which Defendant(s).

2

2. The Defendants shall file their motions for summary judgment and
consolidated statement of material facts, and all parties shall file any
Daubert motions, no later than Friday, December 6, 2013.
3. The Plaintiffs shall file their briefs opposing summary judgment combined
with their cross-motions for summary judgment no later than Friday,
December 27, 2013.
4. The parties shall file their oppositions to the other side’s Daubert briefs no
later than Monday, January 6, 2014.
5. The Defendants shall file their replies in support of summary judgment
combined with their oppositions to the Plaintiffs’ motions for summary
judgment no later than Friday, January 17, 2014.
6. The parties shall file their replies in favor of their Daubert motions, if any, no
later than Tuesday, January 21, 2014.
7. The Plaintiffs shall file their replies in support of their own motions for
summary judgment, if any, no later than Friday, January 31, 2014.
3. All other scheduling order deadlines remain STAYED pending the disposition of
the anticipated summary judgment motion.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge
Dated this 10th day of October, 2013.

3