Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02644/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02644-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Edward B. Foster,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 03-02644 JW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Presently before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery (hereinafter "Plaintiff's

Motion," Docket Item No. 49). Plaintiff originally filed his Motion on August 6, 2004. On November

16, 2004, this Court deemed Plaintiff's Motion as moot, believing that the parties had settled this case. 

(See Order to Show Cause Regarding Settlement; Order Deeming All Unresolved Motions as Moot,

Docket Item No. 70.) Settlement, however, never materialized because Defendant presented

inaccurate information to Plaintiff during their settlement conference. (See Order Denying Motion to

Enforce Settlement; Setting Hearing Date for Motions, hereinafter "March 17, 2005 Order," Docket

Item No. 87, at 2:18-19, 2:22-25.) As a result, this Court reinstated Plaintiff's Motion. (March 17,

2005 Order at 3:1-4.)

This Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's

most recent production of eight documents gives this Court good cause to reopen discovery. In

essence, Defendant proffers a twofold counter-argument. First, Defendant argues, the documents that it

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 91 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

recently produced do not raise any new issues. (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion,

hereinafter "Defendant's Opposition," Docket Item No. 58, 4:20-5:23 (wherein Defendant analyzes,

document by document, its recent document production).) Second, Defendant argues, Plaintiff cannot

show good cause for reopening discovery because Plaintiff "served no written discovery" and "took

no depositions" prior to the discovery cut-off date. (Defendant's Opposition at 3:3-4, 3:12.) The

arguments advanced by Defendant in its Opposition are persuasive. Furthermore, even the case upon

which Plaintiff himself relies, Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992), apparently cuts

against him. (Plaintiff's Motion at 3:14-17.) As Judge Wood in that case noted, "A party who fails to

pursue discovery in the face of a court ordered cut-off cannot plead prejudice from his own inaction." 

Rosario, 963 F.2d at 1019.

For these reasons, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery.

Dated: June 14, 2005

03cv2644reopen-disc

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 91 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Ellen B. Kamon ekamon@sortlaw.com

John A. Shepardson johnshepardson@hotmail.com

Dated: June 14, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 91 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 3