Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00807/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00807-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

04cv0807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOWARD KELLY, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et

al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 04-CV-0807-WQH (JMA)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

On November 19, 2008, the undersigned’s law clerk held a

telephonic discovery conference with Aaron Markowitz, Esq.,

counsel for Plaintiff, and Stephen Galton, Esq. and Keiko Kojima,

Esq., counsel for Defendant. After having been apprised of

various disagreements regarding discovery, the Court issued the

following orders:

1. The depositions to be taken by Plaintiff of Defendant’s

witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall occur where

the witnesses are located, which the Court understands is

Defendant’s home office in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Court

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 79 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 04cv0807

disagrees with Plaintiff’s position that the proper location for

these depositions is San Diego because the case is venued here,

and also disagrees with Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant

chose the forum for the instant action by virtue of the fact that

it filed a previous case against Plaintiff in this Court. 

2. Until the Court issues a ruling regarding the parties’

dispute over the protective order to be entered in this case (see

Doc. Nos. 75, 76), the parties are to exchange any documents they

deem in good faith to be of a confidential nature on an

“attorney’s eyes only” basis. The pendency of the parties’

motion regarding the protective order shall in no way impede the

exchange of documents in this case.

3. Counsel shall meet and confer by telephone regarding any

outstanding discovery issues, including the scope of the Fed. R.

Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions noticed by Plaintiff, as well as

Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s document requests, by no

later than the close of business on November 21, 2008. Counsel

shall make every effort to resolve these issues without the

necessity of further Court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 20, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 79 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2