Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07320/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07320-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEPHANIE JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEARBORN NATIONAL LIFE 

INSURANCE,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-07320-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFF'S 

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAM

Re: Dkt. No. 44

On June 10, 2019, the close of the fact discovery period, defendant Dearborn National Life 

Insurance Company (“Dearborn”) filed a noticed motion to compel plaintiff Stephanie Jensen to 

submit to an independent medical exam (“IME”). Dkt. No. 42. Dearborn claimed that although 

Ms. Jensen indicated she was willing to submit to an IME, she failed to respond when Dearborn 

attempted to follow up on certain issues. Id. On June 10, this Court terminated Dearborn’s 

noticed motion and directed the parties to file, by June 17, 2019, a joint discovery letter in 

compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Dkt. No. 43.

The parties have now filed a joint discovery letter advising that they agree to an IME, 

which they stipulate should occur after the fact and expert discovery cutoffs. Dkt. No. 44. They 

request that this Court “retain jurisdiction over the IME” in the event disputes arise. They also ask 

for a “suspension” of the fact and expert discovery cutoff dates, which have already passed.

Because the parties’ joint discovery letter presents no actual dispute for this Court to 

resolve, that matter is deemed moot. Inasmuch as all discovery matters have been referred to the 

undersigned for resolution, any disputes arising from the parties’ performance of their agreement 

regarding an IME should be directed to the undersigned magistrate judge. This Court, however,

Case 5:17-cv-07320-EJD Document 45 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

expresses no opinion as to the propriety of the parties’ agreement to conduct the IME after the fact 

and expert discovery deadlines. Additionally, the undersigned magistrate judge has no authority 

to suspend, extend, or modify any case management deadlines (Dkt. No. 37). All such requests 

must be submitted to Judge Davila, who presides over this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-07320-EJD Document 45 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2