Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00037/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00037-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTEX HOMES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0037 TLN KJN

ORDER

On December 3, 2015, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference 

with respect to non-party Shinnick & Ryan LLP’s (“S&R”) motion to quash the subpoena served 

on it by defendants Centex Homes and Centex Homes Realty Company (collectively, “Centex”). 

At the conference, Michael Quinn appeared on behalf of S&R, Timothy Heggem appeared on 

behalf of Centex, and Nathaniel Clark appeared on behalf of plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance 

Company (“Travelers”). 

After reviewing the parties’ joint letter brief (ECF No. 41) and the court’s discussion with 

the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. In light of continuing informal dispute resolution proceedings in the underlying Brown

construction defects litigation pending in state court, as well as the parties’ 

forthcoming stipulation proposing an extension of the discovery completion deadline, 

Case 2:15-cv-00037-TLN-KJN Document 44 Filed 12/04/15 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

the court GRANTS S&R’s motion to quash the subpoena. However, the motion is 

granted without prejudice to Centex’s ability to renew its request to depose S&R (and 

propound document requests on S&R) in the future, if the posture of the underlying

Brown action changes or Centex otherwise deems it reasonably necessary. The court 

expresses no opinion at this juncture with respect to whether such a deposition and 

document requests would be permitted.

2. In light of the forthcoming stipulation and proposed order to extend the discovery 

completion deadline, the parties shall promptly meet and confer, and advise the court 

as to which currently pending discovery motions should be withdrawn without 

prejudice, to be re-noticed at a later date, if necessary. The parties are reminded that 

they also have the option of requesting informal telephonic discovery conferences in 

lieu of re-noticing formal motions, and are encouraged to do so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2015

 

Case 2:15-cv-00037-TLN-KJN Document 44 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2