Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01744/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01744-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY

COMPANY, No. 2:07-cv-01744-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES

INSURANCE COMPANY; and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is an Ex Parte Application filed

by Defendant St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“St.

Paul”) for an order approving briefing submitted by St. Paul in

conjunction with the Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 100

and 109) presently scheduled for hearing on December 2, 2010.

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01744-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 11/05/10 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

St. Paul’s application indicates that counsel for Plaintiff

Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) did not notify St.

Paul that its briefing had exceeded the page limitations set

forth in the Court’s Pretrial Status Scheduling Order until

October 22, 2010, one day after briefing had been completed on

the two motions in question. The Court’s own examination of

Continental’s Opposition and Reply papers indicate that

Continental made no reference to St. Paul’s papers having

violated the Scheduling Order. Nor did Continental indicate in

any of its briefing that it was prevented from adequately

addressing the issues raised by St. Paul within its own page

limitations.

Continental nonetheless, in Opposition to St. Paul’s ex

parte request, now argues that St. Paul’s papers should either be

stricken in their entirety, or stricken to the extent they

exceeded the Court’s page limitation. In the alternative,

Continental asks that it be permitted to submit another thirty

pages of briefing despite the fact it never indicated previously

that St. Paul’s overlength briefing precluded it from fully

responding to the substance of St. Paul’s argument.

St. Paul, for its part, admits that it inadvertently failed

to consult the terms of the Court’s Scheduling Order after noting

that the Court’s Local Rules themselves contained no page

limitation. It asks for leave to file its papers as submitted,

claiming that the complexity of the issues, which involve the

interpretation of three different insurance policies, make

extension of the applicable page limitations necessary.

///

Case 2:07-cv-01744-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 11/05/10 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

While the Court admonishes St. Paul’s counsel for failing to

read and follow the terms of the Scheduling Order in this case,

and strongly advises it to scrupulously do so in the future, it

will nonetheless permit St. Paul’s briefing to stand as

submitted, because it concludes that St. Paul has demonstrated

good cause for its request to exceed the applicable page

limitations.

Under the circumstances, the Court rejects Continental’s

after-the-fact attempt to hold St. Paul to those page

limitations, to strike St. Paul’s papers, and/or to permit an

additional round of briefing. The briefings themselves were the

vehicle in which to make those arguments, and Continental did not

even raise the issue until after briefing was concluded and after

St. Paul had no timely opportunity to rectify its admitted error. 

The Court declines to reward Continental’s apparent strategy in

that regard.

Consequently, for the reasons stated above, St. Paul’s Ex

Parte Application (ECF No. 119) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01744-TLN-EFB Document 122 Filed 11/05/10 Page 3 of 3