Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05904/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05904-2/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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-05904 JF 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 6/26/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois

corporation

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CASTLE ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., dba

SEQUOIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

a California corporation; LEWIS C. NELSON &

SONS, a California corporation and DOES 1

through 10,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-5904 JF

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ 1

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Plaintiff RLI Insurance Company (“RLI”) has filed a motion for partial summary

judgment on the issue of whether RLI’s rescission of certain insurance policies issued to

Defendant Castle Rock Industries, Inc. d.b.a. Sequoia Construction Company (“Sequoia”) applies

to Defendant Lewis C. Nelson & Sons, Inc. (“LCN”) as an additional insured under the Sequoia

policies. In support of its opposition to RLI’s motion, LCN has filed two declarations. As part

Case 5:06-cv-05904-JF Document 61 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-05904JF

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

(JFLC1)

of its reply, RLI has objected to the declarations as irrelevant. RLI’s Motion to Strike, pg. 3. 

RLI asserts that its motion for partial summary judgment is based purely on a question of law,

that is, whether its rescission of the Sequoia policies is effective as to additional insureds.

In response to RLI’s evidentiary objections, LCN has filed a motion before Magistrate

Judge Seeborg seeking discovery in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)

(“Rule 56(f)”). LCN requests that its Rule 56(f) motion be heard before or in conjunction with

the hearing for RLI’s motion for partial summary judgment. That hearing is scheduled for June

29, 2007.

Good cause therefore appearing, the Court hereby advises the parties that it will consider

LCN’s Rule 56(f) motion in conjunction with RLI’s motion for summary judgment at the June

29, 2007 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 26, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05904-JF Document 61 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-05904JF

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Douglas B. Allen burnettburnettallen@yahoo.com

Laura L. Goodman laura.goodman@sdma.com, antonia.bereal-lee@sdma.com,

jamison.narbaitz@sdma.com, jonathan.fineman@sdma.com,

sdmacalendaring@sdma.com

Julia Ann Molander julia.molander@sdma.com

Alexander F. Stuart afs@wsblaw.net, cna@wsblaw.net, csc@wsblaw.net, jay@wsblaw.net

Erin Joy Volkmar erin.volkmar@sdma.com

Clinton Stevens Coddington

Willoughby Stuart and Bening Inc.

50 W. San Fernando #400

San Jose, CA 95113

Bruce H. Winkelman

Craig and Winkelman

2001 Addison Street, Suite 300

Berkeley, CA 95704

Case 5:06-cv-05904-JF Document 61 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3