UrbCamCom/WSU I, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 62

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 defendant's Motion to extend scheduling order and denying 59 defendant's Motion to deny plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

URBCAM/WSU I, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-CV-15686
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING
ORDER (Doc. 49) AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 59)
This breach of contract action arises out of water damage to an apartment
building which was insured by defendant Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”).
Now before the court are (1) Lexington’s motion to amend the scheduling order to
extend the discovery cut-off date and the deadline for filing dispositive motions, and (2)
Lexington’s motion to deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment so that it may
conduct additional discovery on its putative fraud counterclaim and affirmative defense
which it sought to add pursuant to its motion to amend. Pursuant to this court’s
September 6, 2013 scheduling order, the discovery cut-off date was November 13,
2013, and the dispositive motion cut-off date was December 16, 2013, which is the
same date that Lexington filed its motion to amend the scheduling order. Lexington
argues that additional time is needed to conduct discovery on its affirmative defense
and counterclaim alleging fraud. Lexington’s motion to amend to add a fraud
-1-

counterclaim and affirmative defense was denied by order entered this date affirming, in
part, and reversing in part, the magistrate judge’s order. Thus, Lexington’s motion to
extend discovery on this basis shall be denied as moot. For the same reason,
Lexington’s motion to deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment so that it can
conduct discovery on its putative fraud claim and defense, shall be denied.
Lexington also argues that additional time to conduct discovery is needed
because plaintiff allegedly failed to fully respond to its first set of requests for production
of documents and first supplemental set of requests for production of documents.
Lexington filed a motion to compel production of requested documents which Magistrate
Judge Randon denied on the record and by written order, on December 16, 2013.
(Doc. 46). Pursuant to an agreement by the parties, however, Magistrate Judge
Randon ordered that the parties schedule the deposition of plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6)
representative, limited to topics related to its production requests, on or before
December 30, 2013.
Based on the limited additional discovery which Magistrate Judge Randon
allowed in his December 16, 2013 order, Lexington’s motion to extend the dispositive
motion cut-off date (Doc. 49) hereby is EXTENDED until March 3, 2014. As Magistrate
Judge Randon previously denied Lexington’s motion to compel, Lexington’s motion to
extend discovery to allow for plaintiff’s production of requested documents is DENIED
as moot. Lexington’s motion for additional discovery related to the fraud counterclaim
and affirmative defense is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Lexington’s motion to deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment so that it can
conduct additional discovery (Doc. 59) is DENIED and Lexington is ORDERED to
-2-

respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on or before March 3, 2014.
A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment shall be heard on March
20, 2014 at 10:30 am.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
February 10, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-