Evanston Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding 57 Motion to Compel and 59 Motion to Extend Deadlines. As to the Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Continue Deposition and For Award of Attorney Fees, (filing no. 57 ): a. On or before August 20, 2010, t he parties shall confer and attempt to resolve the plaintiffs' motion to compel. b. On or before August 27, 2010, the parties shall either jointly advise the court that the motion to compel is resolved and the terms of that resolution. The plain tiffs' unopposed Motion to Extend Progression Deadlines, (filing no. 59 ), is granted. Discovery and deposition deadline is October 30, 2010. Jury Trial continued to 4/11/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. Pretrial Conference continued to 3/24/2011 at 11:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)

Download PDF
Evanston Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA E V A N S T O N INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , an Illinois Corporation, a n d DORE & ASSOCIATES C O N T R A C T IN G , INC., an Indiana C o r p o r a tio n , P l a i n t if f s , V. L E X I N G T O N INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. T h e plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Continue D e p o sitio n and For Award of Attorney Fees, (filing no. 57), and a Motion to Extend P ro g re s s io n Deadlines, (filing no. 59). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4 :0 9 C V 3 0 1 1 M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER The defendant did not respond to the motion to continue the progression schedule, and th a t motion is therefore deemed unopposed. The motion to extend the progression deadlines w ill be granted. The plaintiffs' motion to compel seeks an order compelling the defendant to produce d o c u m e n ts in response to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition, to p ro v id e a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege, and to continue a n d complete an unfinished 30(b)(6) deposition in Omaha, Nebraska. The defendant filed n o brief in response to this motion, but did file notice of serving a privilege log. It is not c le a r whether the privilege log encompasses all the documents requested in the plaintiffs' m o tio n to compel. Dockets.Justia.com T h e plaintiffs will be afforded time to review the privilege log and determine if the m o tio n to compel is now resolved or whether additional arguments need to be raised. The p a rties are reminded to consider Rule 502(e) of the Federal Rules of Evidence as a possible m e a n s to resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Wade v. Gaither, 2010 WL 624249, 2010 U.S. Dist. L E X IS 14456, 7-8 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2010); Northern Natural Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 2 0 1 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8810, 16-17 (D. Kan. Feb. 1, 2010); In re Avandia Mktg., 2009 U.S. D is t. LEXIS 122246, 34-36 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2009). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) A s to the Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Continue D ep o sitio n and For Award of Attorney Fees, (filing no. 57): a. O n or before August 20, 2010, the parties shall confer and attempt to re so lv e the plaintiffs' motion to compel, specifically to include the p riv ileg e issues and the documents identified in the defendant's p riv ile g e log, and whether an agreement and order under Rule 502 c o u ld facilitate resolving the motion to compel. O n or before August 27, 2010, the parties shall either jointly advise the c o u rt that the motion to compel is resolved and the terms of that re so lu tio n , or if matters remain unresolved, the plaintiffs shall file a b rie f identifying any remaining issues and their arguments for judicial re s o lu tio n of those issues. b. 2) T h e plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Extend Progression Deadlines, (filing no. 5 9 ) , is granted, and the progression schedule is amended as follows: a. A jury trial is set to commence on April 11, 2011 before Judge Urbom. N o more than three (3) days are allocated to the trial of this case and c o u n se l shall plan accordingly. This case is subject to the prior trial of c rim in a l cases and such other civil cases as may be scheduled for trial b e f o re this one. -2- b. T h e pretrial conference will be held before the undersigned magistrate ju d g e on March 24, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. One-half hour is allocated to th is conference. Counsel shall email a draft pretrial conference order to z w a rt@ n e d .u sc o u rts.g o v , in either MS Word or WordPerfect format, b y 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2011, and the draft order shall conform to th e requirements of the local rules. A s to the issue of liability, the discovery and deposition deadline is O c to b e r 30, 2010. Motions to compel discovery must be filed at least 1 5 days prior to the discovery and deposition deadline. If the parties believe the case can be resolved by cross-motions for s u m m a r y judgment, they shall file their summary judgment motions, alo n g with their stipulation of facts and affidavits, on or before D e c em b e r 1, 2010. A b s e n t an agreement by the parties to submit this case on cross motions f o r summary judgment, the deadline for filing motions to dismiss, m o tio n s for summary judgment or motions to exclude expert testimony o n Daubert and related grounds is December 7, 2010. T h e deposition deadline set forth in paragraph "c" does not apply to p ro v in g plaintiff's damages at trial. If this case is not resolved by s u m m a ry judgment in favor of the defendant, the parties will be a llo w e d to depose witnesses on the issue of damages for the purpose of s e c u rin g trial testimony. c. d. e. f. D A T E D this 6 th day of August, 2010. B Y THE COURT: s / Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?