Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643-12/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESG REPUBLIC, INC, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED 

REQUEST RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(Doc. 84)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

The matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulated request to modify briefing on 

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s pending motion to strike. 

(Doc. 84). The parties’ filing was made at the Court’s direction in its order resolving certain 

discovery disputes. See (Doc. 81).

Relevant here, at the parties’ joint request, the Court convened for informal discovery 

dispute conference on December 10, 2024. (Doc. 80). The discovery disputes centered on 

Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendants had not made certain deponents available for deposition 

prior to the deadline to complete nonexpert discovery and had not produced certain documents 

Plaintiff believed Defendants possessed. During the conference, the parties agreed to abide by 

an order of the Court resolving the disputes, subject only to their seeking review of the 

undersigned’s order by the assigned district judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See (Doc. 

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 85 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 4
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

81 at 3-4). In other words, the parties agreed that the Court’s resolution of the discrete discovery 

disputes would be to the exclusion of seeking the same relief through a motion to compel pursuant 

to Rule 37 or otherwise.

In its order resolving the discovery disputes, the Court directed Defendants to make their 

deponents available for deposition by a date certain and directed Defendants to complete a 

diligent search for documents identified in the parties’ joint statement of the dispute (Doc. 76 at 

4) and transmit to Plaintiff a certification that they completed a diligent search for the documents, 

describe the results of the search, and produce any responsive documents.

In the parties’ instant stipulated request to modify briefing schedule (Doc. 84), Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendants failed to produce certain documents it contends were required under the 

Court’s discovery order and seeks an order permitting a second deposition of Alex Campos due 

to Defendants’ production of other documents a day after his deposition was taken. Defendants 

report they in fact complied with the Court’s order to undertake a search for documents, to 

produce responsive documents and to serve a certificate upon Plaintiff memorializing the search.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to continue Mr. Campos’ deposition for the sole 

purpose of eliciting testimony concerning newly produced documents. The Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s request to facilitate additional time for its anticipated motion to compel production of 

documents – for two reasons. First, the Court’s order did not direct Defendants to produce 

identified documents, it merely directed Defendants to undertake a diligent search and produce 

in addition to any responsive documents a certification memorializing their undertaking of the 

search. Second, as a condition for informal resolution of the discovery disputes, the parties 

expressly waived their right to move under Rule 37 to compel production of the same documents 

that were the subject of the parties’ request for relief.

Because there can be no need for a motion to compel under these circumstances, the Court

declines to set a briefing schedule on any such motion. Instead, the Court will direct Plaintiff to 

serve any notice for continued deposition on Mr. Campos within seven days of entry of this order 

and direct any continued deposition to be completed within 21 days of entry of this order.

The Court also declines to adopt the parties’ proposed briefing schedule on Defendants’ 

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 85 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 4
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

3

pending motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s pending motion to strike. The proposed 

schedules incorporate an inexplicable amount of delay without any purported cause, let alone 

good cause. Among other things, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been pending 

for more than one month, yielding ample time for Plaintiff to review the motion and consider its 

opposition. Instead, the Court will set a briefing schedule that accounts for the completion of 

Mr. Campos’ deposition and otherwise incorporates a deadline for Plaintiff to oppose 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 14 days after the latest date by which such 

deposition must be completed. See Local Rule 230.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants any notice of continued deposition for Alex 

Campos to address solely any documents Defendants produced after the 

completion of Mr. Campos’ initial deposition within seven (7) days of this order 

and any such continued deposition shall be completed no later than January 31, 

2025. Consistent with its earlier order (Doc. 81), Defendants are prohibited from 

supporting their pending motion for summary judgment with testimony elicited 

during the deposition.

2. Plaintiff SHALL file its opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 73) no later than February 14, 2025.

3. Defendants SHALL file any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 73) no later than seven (7) days after Plaintiff’s filing 

of its opposition.

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 85 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. The hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73) is set for 

March 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff in Courtroom 

6, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 85 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 4