Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01923-23/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ROYCE STOLZ, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVELERS INSURANCE, et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-1923-KJM-KJN

ORDER TO RESPOND TO RENEWED 

SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE

(ECF No. 105, 121, 143.)

In this case, the undersigned previously ordered plaintiff Stolz to produce certain 

documents and respond to certain interrogatories, as requested by defendant Travelers, by 

October 4, 2019. (See ECF No. 121.) Since then, Stolz’s Counsel was permitted to withdraw, 

Stolz was provided more time to retain new counsel—who entered this case on February 14, 

2020. (See ECF No. 145, 147.) Thereafter, the court held a telephonic status conference on 

March 6, 2020.

For the reasons stated at the hearing, the court GRANTS limited additional time for new 

counsel to conduct a thorough review of all of Stolz’s documents, as detailed in ECF No. 121. By 

March 20, 2020, Stolz shall DELIVER to Travelers his responses to the outstanding discovery 

requests (Interrogatories 1–3 and Request for Production 4) (See ECF No. 105). Concurrently, 

Stolz’s Counsel shall FILE with the court a declaration detailing the scope of his review of his 

client’s documents—including that he verified: (a) from Stolz’s credit report, that Stolz in fact has 

no credit cards; (b) from Stolz’s bank statements (and credit cards, if shown on Stolz’s credit 

Case 2:18-cv-01923-KJM-KJN Document 155 Filed 03/10/20 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

report), whether Stolz conducted transactions in the vicinity of the El Dorado property to indicate 

he resided in the area at least 15 days per month during the relevant time period; (c) from Stolz’s

cell phone records, whether they indicate his location during the relevant period and whether that 

location supports Stolz’s prior statements that he spent at least 15 days per month in the vicinity 

of the El Dorado property; and (d) from all other documentation Stolz submitted to counsel, 

whether they support Stolz’s averments regarding the amount of time spent at the El Dorado 

property. (See ECF No. 121; see also ECF No. 106-17, Stolz’s Responses to Interrogatories 1-3.) 

In this filing with the court, counsel for Stolz shall update the court on the status of any other 

outstanding discovery disputes.

If, after reviewing Stolz’s responses Travelers find them sufficient, it shall FILE a 

declaration with the court withdrawing its renewed second motion to enforce. If Travelers finds 

Stolz’s responses deficient, it shall FILE a motion to renew its second motion to enforce, briefly 

detailing the alleged deficiencies in Stolz’s latest responses. In this filing, Travelers shall update 

the court on the status of any other outstanding discovery disputes.

Finally, the court is in receipt of the parties’ proposed order regarding the extension of the 

deadlines for expert disclosures and dispositive motions. (See ECF No. 151.) Given that the 

previous deadlines (see ECF No. 98) have been affected by this long-running discovery dispute 

and the court’s order staying discovery during the pendency of prior counsel’s withdrawal (see

ECF No. 128), the court VACATES the expert disclosure deadlines from ECF No. 98. However, 

given that Stolz is now represented by counsel, this case ultimately will be referred back to the 

district judge—after this discovery dispute has concluded. See Local Rule 302(c)(21). At that 

point, the parties may refile with the assigned district judge their stipulation and proposed order to 

reset the expert discovery deadlines and the deadlines for dispositive motions.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020

stol.1923

Case 2:18-cv-01923-KJM-KJN Document 155 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2