Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03002/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03002-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF —No. C-06-03002 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 9/28/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE

COMPANY, a California Corporation,

Defendant.

No. C-06-03002 RMW

ORDER GRANTING WAUSAU'S MOTION

FOR RELIEF

[Re Docket No. 217]

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute for defense fees and costs and indemnity

arising out of two environmental lawsuits filed by the Department of Toxic Substances control

("DTSC") against Cal. Water. The suits have been settled and one of the issues between these

parties is whether the labor and materials Cal. Water agreed to provide under the settlement are

covered "damages" under the insurance policies issued to Cal. Water by Wausau. 

On August 24, 2007, Wausau moved to compel production of Cal. Water's rate filings with

the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC rate cases"), Cal. Water's budgets from the Chico district,

and an MOU agreement between Cal. Water and DTSC, executed on or about May 7, 2007. This

court referred the motion, which Wausau asked to be heard on shortened time, to Judge Trumbull,

the magistrate judge assigned to discovery matters in this case. Judge Trumbull, finding that

Case 5:06-cv-03002-RMW Document 232 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF —No. C-06-03002 RMW

MAG 2

Wausau's motion was filed after the August 17, 2007 cutoff for discovery motions, denied the

motion to shorten time and set the motion to compel for hearing on October 9, 2007 contingent upon

this court granting relief from its case management order. Wausau asserts that Cal. Water has now

made available the requested PUC rate cases and Chico district budgets and is satisfied that the

appropriate documents will be produced. However, the parties continue to dispute the production of

the MOU agreement. 

Wausau seeks relief from two discovery deadlines as follows: (1) it seeks relief from the

August 17, 2007 deadline for discovery motions so that the remaining issues in its late-filed motion

to compel can be heard; and (2) it seeks relief from the September 7, 2007 expert discovery deadline

so that its rebuttal expert witness, Michael Diliberto, may incorporate information from the

documents it sought to have produced into his rebuttal report. The PUC rate documents and budgets

were not produced until September 5, 2007 (although, as set forth below, the parties differ as to

when the documents were made available to Wausau for inspection) and, of course, the MOU

remains the subject of a motion to compel.

Cal. Water opposes Wausau's motion for relief, characterizing it as a unilateral attempt to

extend discovery only as to Wausau. Cal. Water argues that the MOU was not requested until after

the fact discovery cutoff and that, should Cal. Water be ordered to produce the document, the fact

that discovery has closed will cause it prejudice in that it will be unable to propound discovery to

Wausau to determine what Wausau's contentions about the MOU will be or to depose witnesses at

DTSC for clarification. 

It would appear that the existence of the MOU was first revealed in the August 10, 2007

deposition of Lynne McGhee, Cal. Water's general counsel produced by Cal. Water as a 30(b)(6)

witness to testify a to Cal. Water's damages. That deposition took place seven days prior to the fact

discovery cutoff and thereafter the parties met and conferred regarding producing the MOU

document. When that effort failed, according to Wausau, it filed its motion to compel. Cal. Water

does not dispute these events, only the relevance of the MOU, which is a matter currently scheduled

to be heard before Judge Trumbull on October 9, 2007.

Cal. Water also contends that it is Wausau's fault that Diliberto did not have access to the

Case 5:06-cv-03002-RMW Document 232 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF —No. C-06-03002 RMW

MAG 3

PUC rate cases in sufficient time to review them for his rebuttal report and that Wausau should not

be permitted to extend its deadline for producing his report. Cal. Water asserts that it offered the

PUC rate documents to Wausau for inspection beginning August 20, 2007, but Wausau refused to

"sift through thousands of documents" until after August 29, 2007. The email communication to

which Cal. Water cites in support of its contention that the delay in production was caused by

Wausau does not clearly support Cal. Water's contention that Wausau was solely responsible for the

delay. The original August 20, 2007 email from Cal. Water's counsel to Wausau's counsel indicates

that the PUC rate case documents "will be made available for your review" – it does not state that

the documents are available at the time the email was sent. Decl. of Geoffrey Hutchinson, Exs. C &

D. From the email communication string between the parties' attorneys, it is not entirely clear when

prior to August 29, 2007 the documents would have been available for Wausau to inspect.

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) provides that a scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge." Here, the court finds that the request to

produce the MOU that Wausau seeks to compel was timely. It was requested at the time of

McGhee's August 10 deposition, which was before the fact discovery cut-off of August 13, 2007. 

Thus, the court finds that Wausau has shown good cause to extend the August 17, 2007 deadline for

discovery motions in order to permit it to bring its motion to compel the MOU. The court also finds

good cause to extend the time for Mr. Diliberto to submit his rebuttal expert report to incorporate the

documents that were the subject of that motion to compel (1) that have been produced or that Cal.

Water has agreed to produce and (2) that may be compelled by Judge Trumbull. Accordingly, the

court grants Wausau's motion for relief.

DATED: 9/28/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03002-RMW Document 232 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF —No. C-06-03002 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Bryan M. Barber bbarber@barberlg.com

Fulton M. Smith, III fsmith@barberlg.com 

Counsel for Defendant:

John H. Podesta jpodesta@bbgslaw.com

A. Geoffrey Hutchinson ghutchinson@bbgslaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/28/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-03002-RMW Document 232 Filed 09/28/07 Page 4 of 4