Vincenzo et al v. AIG Insurance Services, Inc.

Filing 70

ORDER/OPINION granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery deadline is enlarged solely as to the taking of the deposition of attorney Robinson, if Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order is ultimately denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S Kaull on 10/8/2009. (kd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA F R A N K W. VINCENZO and S A N D R A K. VINCENZO, his wife, P la in tif f s , vs. A I G INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., D efe n d a n t. O R D E R /O P I N I O N O n the 6th day of October, 2009, Defendant Chartis Claims, Inc. (formerly known as AIG D o m e s tic Claims and hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") filed a Motion to Continue Discovery D e a d lin e for Purposes of Deposing Jacob M. Robinson and Addressing Insufficient Discovery R e s p o n s e s from Plaintiffs [Docket Entry 65]. No Response has yet been filed, and none is due at this tim e . The discovery deadline in this case is October 9, 2009. Defendant noticed the deposition of P la in tiffs ' counsel, Jacob Robinson, on September 11, 2009, to take place on September 30, 2009. On September 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order. On September 30, 2009, the C o u rt entered an order staying the deposition of attorney Robinson until such time as Defendant c o u ld show cause why the deposition should proceed. Defendant filed its response to the Motion for P ro te c tiv e Order on October 2, 2009. The Court scheduled a hearing on the matter for October 16, 2009. D e fe n d a n t also requests enlargement of the discovery deadline until the issue of its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' responses to discovery requests. On October 6, 2009, however, the Court d e n ie d Defendant's motion to compel, thus rendering the request for enlargement of time on this b a s is moot. C I V I L ACTION NO. 1:07CV26

For reasons appearing to the Court, the discovery deadline is therefore enlarged solely as to th e taking of the deposition of attorney Robinson, if Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is u ltim a te ly denied. For docketing purposes, Defendant's Motion to Continue Discovery Deadline for Purposes o f Deposing Jacob M. Robinson and Addressing Insufficient Discovery Responses from Plaintiffs [D o c k e t Entry 65] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is so ORDERED. T h e United States Clerk for the Northern District of West Virginia is directed to provide a c o p y of this order to counsel of record. D A T E D : October 8 , 2009.

John S. Kaull
J O H N S. KAULL U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2