National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al v. Porter Hayden Company

Filing 35

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 11/22/2011 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Lia Griffin; Pla Counsel: Daniel Hayward, Kristen Vine (telephonically); Def Counsel: n/a; Interested Part y Counsel: Wayne Klomp and John P. Sande, III; FTR 9:01 - 9:31; Courtroom: 2; ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion to Strike. ORDER staying 1 Motion to Compel. See attached minutes for specifics. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-014-LRH-WGC

MINUTES OF THE COURT

November 22, 2011

PRESENT: HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB , UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk: Lia Griffin

Court Recorder:

FTR 9:00am - 9:31am

Plaintiff counsel: Daniel Hayward, Kristen Vine (telephonically)
Defendant counsel: None appearing

PROCEEDINGS:
9:00am

Interested Party Western Asbestos Settlement Trust:
Wayne Klomp and John P. Sande, III

MOTION HEARING: MOTION to Compel (#1); MOTION to Strike (#8)

Court convenes.

The court and counsel confer regarding the procedural posture of this case.
I.

Motion to Strike (#8)

Counsel are canvassed regarding the status of the Motion to Strike the Affidavit. The motion (#8)
is deemed MOOT in light of the agreement between parties.
II.

Motion to Compel (#1)

Regarding the Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena, plaintiff National Union has agreed
with the Interested Party, Western Asbestos Settlement Trust (WAST), that WAST will comply
(within a limited scope) with the subpoena. The remaining issue is where the claimants who

3-11-cv-14-LRH-W GC
National Union Fire v. Porter Hayden

Page 2 of 2
11/22/11

submitted the underlying asbestos-related claims to WAST will file any objections to the National
Union subpoenas, i.e., the District of Nevada where the subpoena was issued and where the motion
to compel is pending or the District of Maryland where the underlying action is venued.
The court hears argument regarding jurisdiction over any objections which may be filed. The court
concludes the objections of claimants, if any, should be filed in the District of Maryland action. The
parties have agreed that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of which forum any claimants’
objections have to be lodged, and that it is within the court’s discretion to make this determination.
The court makes its decision, in part, based on the Advisory Committee’s note to Rule 26(c)
(Protective Orders) that “...the court in the district where the deposition is being taken may, and
frequently will, remit the deponent or the party to the court where the action is pending.” The court
also found persuasive the rationale expressed in Eric C. Rajala v. McGuire Woods, LLP, Civil
Action No. 08-2638-CM-DJW, WL 4683979, (D. Ks. Nov. 12, 2010) which noted that in order to
insure “uniform treatment” of discovery issues the forum court may be called upon to resolve such
disputes. The court stated this approach adopts the rationale in Magistrate Judge Leavitt’s decision
in Platinum Air Charters, LLC v. Aviation Ventures, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-1451-RCJ-LRL, 2007 WL
121674, (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2007).
The court also noted this approach is consistent with the manner in which objections to subpoenas
have been lodged by claimants in other jurisdictions, i.e., by submission of the discovery motions
to the District of Maryland (set for hearing on December 15, 2011).
IT IS ORDERED so that general discovery issues receive uniform treatment regardless of the District
in which the discovery is pursued, the claimants shall file any objections in the District of Maryland,
Baltimore Division. Counsel shall modify the Confidentiality Agreement found at exhibit 1,
paragraph 1 to state, “objections shall be filed in the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division.”
The Motion to Compel [1] STAYED pending ruling by the Maryland District Court on any
objections filed by the claimants. Parties shall advise the court of the necessity of further
proceedings.
A written decision will be issued.
9:30am

Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk