Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01186-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERAWAN FARMING PARTNERS, )

INC., a California Corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES )

INSURANCE COMPANY, ARCH )

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, )

ROYAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE )

COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-1186 AWI DLB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME 

This is an insurance dispute. Currently set for hearing and decision on October 22, 2007,

is Defendants’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application for an

order shortening time to hear its motion to continue the October 22, 2007, summary judgment

hearing date. Plaintiff wishes to continue the hearing due to its need for additional discovery,

and the request to continue is based on Rule 56(f). Defendants have filed no response at this

time.

The operative scheduling order contains the following deadlines: expert discovery -

February 22, 2008; non-expert discovery - December 21, 2007; dispositive motions - March 7,

2008; trial - June 3, 3008. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 41. Plaintiff’s motion indicates that the

parties have been through mediation, rescheduled the mediation in order to clarify the damages

issues, agreed to suspend discovery in order to cut down cost, and then resume discovery after

Case 1:05-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

mediation. Plaintiff’s motion further indicates that Defendants’s experts, and two individuals

involved in the claim adjusting process, have not been deposed. Defendants’s motion for

summary judgment relies heavily upon the opinion of its expert witnesses. Given the importance

of Defendants’s expert witnesses to the summary judgment motion, as well as the operative

scheduling order, summary judgment may be premature at this time. However, the Court has not

had the benefit of a response or opposition of any kind from Defendants and therefore will give

Defendants the opportunity to be heard on Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) request for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to shorten time is GRANTED in part in that Defendants are to

file either a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request for Rule 56(f) relief or file an

opposition to that request on or by 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2007;

2. Plaintiff may file a reply to any opposition on or by 5:00 p.m. on October 9, 2007; and

3. The Court will issue a ruling after October 9, 2007, if an opposition is filed by

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2