Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01716/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01716-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE NO. CIV.S-05-1716 MCE DAD

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DONNA GRANT, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court on December 8, 2006, for

hearing on defendant Donna Grant’s motion to compel further

production of documents from plaintiff United Investors Life

Insurance Company. James Fleming appeared on behalf of plaintiff. 

Tim Pori appeared on behalf of defendant Grant.

Having considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument from the

parties, defendant’s motion to compel is denied. As set forth in

more detail on the record during the hearing, the requests for

Case 2:05-cv-01716-MCE -DAD Document 140 Filed 12/11/06 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

 The denial of the motion to compel is without prejudice. In 1

this regard, were defendant to obtain a modification of the

scheduling order from the assigned district judge extending the time

for non-expert discovery, she would be free to refine her discovery

requests. However, as noted at the hearing, the requests for

production at issue are of the sort of broad, general requests the

court would normally expect to be issued at the outset of discovery,

not in the final days of discovery after depositions have been taken

and summary judgment motions have been ruled upon. Defendant’s delay

in bringing this motion has not been adequately explained.

2

production at issue seek a broad array of documents most of which

appear to be irrelevant to the remaining issues to be resolved in

this interpleader action. Moreover, although the Pretrial Scheduling

Order in the case establishes a close of non-expert discovery date of

December 11, the motion to compel was not noticed for hearing by

counsel for defendant until Friday, December 8. Even if the requests

for production could be modified to seek a far more limited set of

documents relevant to the remaining issues, there remains

insufficient time under the scheduling order for this court to rule

on the motion and for additional discovery to be produced before the

close of discovery. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel is

untimely and must be denied.1

DATED: December 11, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\unitedinvestors.oah.120806

Case 2:05-cv-01716-MCE -DAD Document 140 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2