Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01166/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01166-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

 

Sean D. White (Bar No. 137200) 

ARCHER NORRIS 

A Professional Law Corporation 

2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 

P.O. Box 8035 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 930-6600 

Facsimile: (925) 930-6620 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF 

NEW YORK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FOOD SERVICE INSURANCE 

MANAGERS, DWIGHT HALVORSON 

INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and 

DWIGHT HALVORSON, 

Defendants. 

No. CIV.S-04-1166 MCE GGH 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CUT-OFF 

DATE FOR NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

ORDER THEREON 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. 

This Stipulation is entered into by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant THE 

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK (“INSCORP”) and Defendant and 

Counterclaimant FOOD SERVICE INSURANCE MANAGERS (“FSIM”), and Defendants 

DWIGHT HALVORSON INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. (“DHIS”) and DWIGHT 

HALVORSON (“Halvorson”) through their respective counsel of record. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 5
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

RECITALS

1. On August 24, 2004, the parties filed their Joint Status Report and FRCP 26(F) 

Discovery Plan with the Court in the above-captioned matter. In that Report, plaintiff requested a 

discovery cut-off date for non-expert discovery of April 20, 2005. Defendants requested a 

discovery cut-off date for non-expert discovery of June 20, 2005. 

2. On September 21, 2004, the Court its Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order in this 

matter. In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered that all non-expert be completed by May 23, 

2005. 

3. INSCORP and FSIM have each propounded written discovery on each other. 

INSCORP has responded to the written discovery propounded by FSIM. FSIM has responded to 

the written discovery propounded by INSCORP. Issues remain between INSCORP and FSIM 

regarding the sufficiency of the discovery responses. FSIM and INSCORP have been and 

continue to engage in discussions in an effort to resolve these discovery disputes. 

4. On December 28, 2004, FSIM noticed the following depositions: Bob Holland of 

R. Holland & Associates; Deborah Duarte of INSCORP; the person most knowledgeable at Smart 

& Associates; and Andrea O’Hagan. 

5. The depositions noticed by FSIM were continued by agreement of the parties so 

that the parties could participate in a dialogue to discuss the potential resolution of this matter. 

6. On January 25, 2005, INSCORP’S counsel of record at the time, Michael Levin of 

Barger & Wolen, wrote to FSIM’s counsel Robert Franceschi to outline a proposal for a 

settlement of this matter. That proposal called for, among other things, an accounting of the 

subject insurance program. 

7. On February 11, 2005, Robert Franceschi counsel for FSIM wrote to INSCORP’s 

current counsel to advise that FSIM is willing to discuss the items set forth in INSCORP’s 

settlement proposal, provided that INSCORP is willing to consider the matters raised by FSIM’s 

counterclaims. INSCORP’S counsel advised Mr. Franceschi that INSCORP is willing to address 

FSIM’s counterclaims in any settlement negotiations between the parties. 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 5
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

8. Counsel for the parties discussed the structure for the settlement discussions, such 

as using the Court’s voluntary mediation program or participating in a mediation with a mutually 

agreeable mediator. 

9. The parties, through their counsel, continue to discuss the potential framework for 

a resolution of this matter as well as the most appropriate vehicle for reaching a resolution (i.e., 

mediation, an accounting with subsequent arbitration, etc.). 

10. The parties desire to continue to engage in discussions regarding a potential 

framework for resolving this matter short of trial. 

11. The parties also recognize the need to continue with non-expert discovery at this 

point. However, the parties will need a short continuance of the non-expert discovery cut-off date 

to complete that discovery. 

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree to the following: 

1. That the date for completion of all non-expert discovery be continued from May 

23, 2005 to June 23, 2005. 

DATED: May __, 2005 ARCHER NORRIS 

 By________________________/s/________________ 

 Sean D. White 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant THE INSURANCE 

CORPORATION OF NEW YORK 

DATED: May __, 2005 PORTER SCOTT WEIBERG & DELEHANT 

 By_____________________/s/___________________ 

 Carl J. Calnero 

 Attorneys for Defendant FOOD SERVICE 

INSURANCE MANAGERS 

DATED: May __, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. FRANCESCHI 

 By__________________/s/______________________ 

 Robert J. Franceschi 

 Attorneys for Counterclaimant FOOD 

SERVICE INSURANCE MANAGERS 

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 06/02/05 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

CORPORATION OF NEW YORK 

DATED: May __, 2005 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 

 

 By____________________/s/____________________ 

 Thomas D. Nielsen 

 Attorneys for Defendants DWIGHT 

 HALVORSON INSURANCE SERVICES, 

INC. and DWIGHT HALVORSON 

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 06/02/05 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the date by which the parties must complete all nonexpert discovery, pursuant to this Court’s Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order, filed on September 

21, 2004, is continued from May 23, 2005 to June 23, 2005. All other terms and provisions of the 

Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order remain in force and effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 2, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 06/02/05 Page 5 of 5