Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03499/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03499-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 

COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS 

INSURANCE CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-03499-SC

ORDER REQUESTING STATUS UPDATE 

On February 24, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff Navigators 

Specialty Insurance Company's ("Navigators") request under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to postpone ruling on Defendants St. 

Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and Travelers 

Property Casualty Company of America's ("Travelers") motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 86 ("56(d) Order"). The Court requested 

a status update by March 6, 2015 as to whether the necessary 

additional discovery had been completed. The parties filed the 

requested update on March 4, explaining that the discovery was not 

yet complete. 

Case 3:13-cv-03499-SC Document 95 Filed 05/14/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

Since then, the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of 

Defendant Travelers with prejudice. ECF Nos. 88, 89. The parties 

have also filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment 

regarding the duty to defend. See ECF Nos. 90, 93. 

 The parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer and file 

within ten (10) days of the signature date of this Order a joint 

statement of no more than ten (10) pages explaining the status of 

Defendants' original motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69). The 

parties should explain (1) whether and how the dismissal of 

Defendant Travelers affects the motion; and (2) whether and how the 

intervening cross-motions for summary judgment affect the original 

summary judgment motion. If the parties still seek a ruling on the 

original summary judgment motion, they should also (3) update the 

Court on the status of the additional discovery that Plaintiff 

requested; and (4) suggest a supplemental briefing schedule for the 

original summary judgment motion that permits the parties to fairly 

and adequately address the new discovery. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: May 14, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:13-cv-03499-SC Document 95 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2