Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04666/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04666-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

GEORGE MOSKOWITE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVEREN CAPITAL CORPORATION

GROUP DISABILITY INCOME PLAN,

Defendant /

No. C-03-4666 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE

JOINT STATUS REPORT

By order filed March 10, 2006, the Court took under submission plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, both of which

address the issue of whether defendant, in denying plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits,

abused its discretion. On September 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a Supplemental Brief, in which

plaintiff requested the opportunity to conduct further discovery and also requested that,

upon the completion of such discovery, the Court direct the parties to submit new briefing

on the merits of plaintiff’s claim for benefits.

By order filed November 2, 2006, the Court referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard

Zimmerman plaintiff’s request for additional discovery and, by separate order, also filed

November 2, 2006, deferred ruling on plaintiff’s request that the parties submit new briefing

on the merits of his claim, until after the issue of plaintiff’s entitlement to additional

discovery had been resolved. By order filed November 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04666-MMC Document 114 Filed 05/14/07 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

1

If the parties have differing views on any of these topics, they may set them forth in

separate sections of the joint status report.

2

Zimmerman found plaintiff was entitled to certain additional discovery. Since that time,

neither party has filed any document indicating a dispute or other concern has arisen

regarding the completion of the additional discovery.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DIRECTS the parties to file a joint status report, no

later than May 31, 2007, informing the Court as to: (1) whether the production of the

additional discovery ordered by Magistrate Judge Zimmerman is, in fact, complete;

(2) whether the parties are of the view that new or additional briefing on the merits of

plaintiff’s claim is warranted in light in the additional discovery or for any other reason; (3)

whether a referral for further ADR would be appropriate; and (4) any other matter the

parties wish to raise.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04666-MMC Document 114 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2