State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/23/2017: DENYING without prejudice 99 Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order and DENYING as moot 108 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Reply. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STATE OF WISCONSIN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
INSURANCE FUND,

Case No. 15-CV-142-JPS-JPS

Plaintiff,

v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, and
MILWAUKEE COUNTY,

ORDER

Defendants.
On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff State of Wisconsin Local Government
Property Insurance Fund (the “Fund”) filed an expedited motion for a
protective order. (Docket #99). The Fund seeks to quash a subpoena issued
by Defendant Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) on a nontestifying expert it retained, Insight Forensic Accountants (“Insight”). The
Court will not yet reach the substance of the parties’ dispute. Civil Local
Rule 37 provides that parties must confer in good faith on issues raised in
discovery motions prior to filing such motions. While the literal text of the
Rule applies only to motions to compel discovery, the Court finds it
prudent to enforce the Rule in this context as well. The lack of a proper Rule
37 conference is evident in the parties’ submissions, as their positions
appear to go past each other rather than addressing the opposition’s
arguments directly.
Further, as is clear from counsels’ competing affidavits, they do not
agree that a meet-and-confer was actually held as to the Insight subpoena.

The Fund claims that attempted to call Lexington’s counsel once about the
matter, but that he could not be reached, and that the issues were addressed
in prior e-mail communications. See (Docket #99-1 and #99-4). Lexington
counters that the e-mails discussed different subpoenas, not the one
directed to Insight. (Docket #105-3). One attempted call and one disputed
set of e-mails does not satisfy the burden imposed by Rule 37. The Court
will, therefore, deny the Fund’s motion without prejudice. If the motion is
pursued again, the Court expects that the parties will adhere to the text and
spirit of Rule 37.1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff State of Wisconsin Local Government
Property Insurance Fund’s motion to quash and for protective order
(Docket #99) be and the same is hereby DENIED without prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff State of Wisconsin Local
Government Property Insurance Fund’s motion for leave to file a reply
(Docket #108) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

The Court will likewise deny as moot the Fund’s request to offer a reply
in support of its expedited motion. (Docket #108).
1

Page 2 of 2