LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SKOROCHOD et al
ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL A DEPOSITION OF PLFF'S CLAIMS ADJUSTOR, (DOC. NO. 32), IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET ON 3/29/17. 3/29/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
KAREN SKOROCHOD, et al.
I have considered the defendants’ motion to compel a deposition of the plaintiff’s
claims adjustor, Doc. No. 32, the plaintiff’s opposition, Doc. No. 33, and the defendants’
reply, Doc. No. 35. For reasons explained in my memorandum opinion filed with this
Order, it is on this 29th day of March, 2017
Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED.
On or before April 7, 2017 the plaintiff will produce to the defendants a
disclosure statement that
identifies each witness statement that it (or any of its insureds, or
its representatives, or its insureds’ representatives) has taken during the course of its
investigation and in preparation for trial in this matter and in the related state case.
For each such statement, plaintiff must supply the date the
statement was taken, the name of the investigator who took the statement, the name of
the witness who gave the statement, and the general subject matter of the statement.
For each such statement, the plaintiff must also describe any
privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, or the attorney work-product doctrine,
that shields the document from disclosure. The plaintiff’s disclosure document shall
comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(5).
BY THE COURT:
_s/Richard A. Lloret_____
RICHARD A. LLORET
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?