Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-19/pdf.json

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

---

DLA PIPER US LLP

SAN FRANCI SCO

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 

SF\3133762.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AON’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR J. LEVINE CASE NO. 1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS 

Margaret L. Parker (Bar No. 129897) 

Matthew S. Covington (Bar No. 154429) 

Stephen A. Chiari (Bar No. 221410) 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

153 Townsend Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94107-1957 

Tel: 415.836.2500 

Fax: 415.836.2501 

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant 

AON RISK SERVICES, INC. OF CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE SERVICES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & 

GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEE INVESTMENTS, LLC dba THE 

ISLAND, a California limited liability 

company, and DIANA CONLEY, an 

individual, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS 

ORDER CONCERNING AON’S MOTION 

IN LIMINE NO. 1, TO EXCLUDE 

CERTAIN TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR J. 

LEVINE 

Date: January 30, 2007 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Dept: Courtroom 3 

Judge: The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS 

On Thursday, January 18, 2007, Motion in Limine No. 1 by Aon Risk Services, Inc. of 

Central California Insurance Services (“Aon”) to Exclude Certain Testimony of Arthur J. Levine 

came on for hearing. Bruce T. Smyth of Charleston, Revich & Chamberlin, LLP appeared on 

behalf of plaintiff United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (“USF&G”) and American 

Specialty Insurance Services (“ASI”). Daniel O. Jamison and Keith M. White of Dowling, Aaron 

& Keeler appeared on behalf of defendant Lee Investments, LLC (“Lee”). Matthew S. Covington 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 597 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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- 

SF\3133762.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AON’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR J. LEVINE CASE NO. 1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS 

of DLA Piper US LLP appeared on behalf of defendant Aon. The Court, having considered the 

moving and opposing papers and the arguments of counsel, hereby orders that Aon’s motion in 

limine no. 1 to exclude certain testimony of Arthur J. Levine is granted, as follows: 

1. Under Rule 37(c)(1), and all other relevant authorities, Arthur J. Levine is 

precluded from testifying to any opinions regarding the broker standard of care, or Aon’s alleged 

breach(es) of the same, or any other opinion concerning Aon as set forth in Aon’s moving papers, 

except as provided in paragraph 2 below. 

The Court makes the factual and legal findings set forth on the record during the hearing 

of this matter and adopts the same as part of this order, as if fully set forth herein. Among other 

things, the Court finds that a) the stricken opinions of Mr. Levine’s opinions were not fairly 

disclosed in his original or supplemental expert report, and that Lee did not avail itself of the 

opportunity to supplement Mr. Levine’s report in December 2005 as permitted in a ruling by 

Magistrate Snyder; b) Lee’s failure to disclose and failure to supplement were not substantially 

justified; c) the failure to disclose and failure to supplement were prejudicial to Aon; 

notwithstanding the fact that Aon’s counsel deposed Mr. Levine concerning his opinions, Aon did 

not have the time or opportunity to retain its own expert to assist Aon’s counsel, and/or to prepare 

a report and testify, concerning the specific opinions offered by Mr. Levine on complex topics; 

d) there was no other means for Aon to compel further disclosure or seek redress under Rule 

37(a)(2)(A) because the discovery motion cut-off period had passed; and e) under Rule 37(c)(1), 

exclusion of Mr. Levine’s opinions is an appropriate sanction and a lesser sanction is not 

appropriate or warranted. 

2. Arthur J. Levine may testify concerning Paragraph 23 of his February 23, 2002 

expert report wherein he states: 

“the only source of classification information is generally the agent or 

broker (i.e. producer). The producer will (or should) list the classifications 

currently assigned by the WCIRB on the application submitted to the 

insurer. Producers should not, and generally in the exercise of due 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 597 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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 

-3- 

SF\3133762.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AON’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR J. LEVINE CASE NO. 1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS 

diligence do not, rely upon the classification information provided by the 

policy holder, since the latter is not qualified to make such an assignment. 

Nor should the insurer rely upon classification information provided by the 

producer...” 

With respect to this subject matter, Mr. Levine may state what he believes the broker’s 

role to be, but he may not define a standard of care, nor state that any standard of care was 

breached. (See January 18, 2007 Transcript, p. 432.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2007 

By:__/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER___________ 

The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Court Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 597 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 3