CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Kirson

Filing 152

ORDER re:Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 5/3/2018. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

May 3, 2018
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

CX Reinsurance Company Limited, f/k/a CNA Reinsurance Company Limited v.
Devon S. Johnson; Civil Case No. RWT-15-3132

Dear Counsel:
This case has been referred to me for discovery disputes and related scheduling matters.
[ECF No. 40]. Two motions are presently pending regarding the scope of my prior discovery
orders, [ECF Nos. 104, 125]. First, CX Re has objected to producing responsive documents
within the possession of Pro IS, Inc. (“Pro IS”), alleging undue burden. [ECF No. 138]. Second,
Defendant Devon S. Johnson (“Johnson”) and CX Re contest whether CX Re has “control” over
responsive documents within the possession of Raphael & Associates (“Raphael”), CX Re’s
former claims adjuster. See [ECF Nos. 132, 136, 139, 140, 142, 145, 150, 151]. I find, however,
that the resolution of these issues is best deferred until after the May 10, 2018 hearing on the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and Judge Titus’s ruling thereon. See [ECF No.
128].
In denying Johnson’s motion to suspend briefing on summary judgment because of the
pending discovery issues, Judge Titus stated, “The actual legal issue in dispute is the ‘alleged
material misrepresentations made by Kirson in his insurance application with [CXRe],’ and the
voluminous record in this case appears to provide ample information for both parties to argue its
merits.” [ECF No. 135 at 5] (citation omitted). Thus, though Johnson seeks documents from
both Pro IS and Raphael that are potentially relevant to his laches defense, Judge Titus is
proceeding with his longstanding May hearing date. There is no reasonable expectation that,
even if I granted Johnson the relief he now seeks, Pro IS or Raphael could produce the
responsive documents prior to the May 10, 2018 hearing. See [ECF No. 150] (Johnson stating
that, in response to a subpoena in B&R Management [a related case], Raphael produced similar
documents in approximately two months). Judge Titus can certainly consider, at the hearing,
whether he wishes to defer his ruling pending my adjudication of the pending motions and,
presumably, the production of responsive documents, if any such production is ultimately
ordered. Presently, however, it would make no sense to order production of documents from
third parties when, in theory, Judge Titus could grant a dispositive motion while the third parties
are undergoing the effort and expense of preparing a response. Accordingly, should Johnson be
successful in either: (a) obtaining from Judge Titus a deferral of his ruling on the dispositive
motions; or (b) surviving summary judgment, I will, before ruling on these issues, confer with
the parties to determine whether I need any additional information.

CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd., f/k/a CNA Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson;
Civil Case No. RWT-15-3132
May 3, 2018
Page 2
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it will be flagged as an opinion and docketed as
an Order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Judge Roger W. Titus