Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00807/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00807-2/pdf.json

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

04cv0807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOWARD KELLY, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et

al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 04-CV-0807-WQH (JMA)

ORDER (1) REGARDING SCOPE OF

DISCOVERY AND (2) RESETTING

RULE 26 COMPLIANCE AND NOTICE

OF TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

On May 1, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., the Court convened a telephonic

Case Management Conference in the above entitled action.

On April 24, 2008, the parties lodged a Proposed Joint

Discovery Plan with the undersigned’s chambers in which the

parties proposed that the Court bifurcate discovery with an

initial phase limited to Plaintiff’s rescission claim. After

carefully considering the arguments set forth in the Proposed

Joint Discovery Plan, as well as the arguments made at the

conclusion of the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on March

19, 2008, the Court concludes that it would be unworkable to

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 67 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 4
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 04cv0807

allow a first phase of discovery on the rescission claim only. 

Given that the parties’ views of the discovery that is relevant 

to the rescission claim are widely divergent, the Court believes

that interminable disputes requiring Court intervention would

arise as to the scope of a first phase of discovery limited to

rescission. Inevitably, if discovery were limited to the

rescission claim and the Court restricted Plaintiff from

obtaining discovery he believes is relevant to that claim

(including discovery that would otherwise be relevant to

Plaintiff’s other two claims for breach of insurance contracts

and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing), Plaintiff would contend, on a future motion for summary

judgment on the rescission claim filed by Defendant, that he does

not have all facts essential to justify his opposition to the

motion for summary judgment and would accordingly file a Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(f) affidavit. Furthermore, if discovery were

bifurcated and Defendant’s eventual motion for summary judgment

on the rescission claim were not granted, and discovery then

proceeded as to Plaintiff’s other two claims, it would be

necessary for numerous witnesses to reappear for their

depositions. For these reasons, the Court finds that the

proposal to limit a first phase of discovery to the rescission

claim is unworkable and not conducive to judicial economy. 

The parties agree that discovery should be deferred

regarding Plaintiff’s post-settlement medical condition and

disability status, Defendant’s post-settlement conduct,

Plaintiff’s alleged damage claims, and Defendant’s potential

claim for restitution. Joint Disc. Plan at 1-2. The Court finds

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 67 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 4
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

1

The proposed joint discovery plan may be delivered directly to

chambers, e-mailed to efile_adler@casd.uscourts.gov, or faxed to (619)

702-9939.

3 04cv0807

that these areas are properly deferred for a later stage of

discovery. 

Accordingly, the Court will not issue a schedule with a

first phase of discovery limited to the rescission claim. 

Rather, the Court will issue a schedule which will permit

discovery as to all three claims set forth in Plaintiff’s

Complaint, with discovery to be deferred on the issues as to

which the parties have agreed discovery should take place at a

later date.

The Court therefore reissues the following orders pursuant

to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to

permit the parties to proceed in accordance with the above:

1. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed by May 8,

2008;

2. All parties shall fully comply with the Initial

Disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) by June 13, 2008;

3. A proposed joint discovery plan shall be lodged with

Magistrate Judge Adler's chambers on or before June 13, 2008 (the

parties should consult Rule 26(f) for the substance of the

discovery plan);1

 and,

4. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a telephonic Case Management Conference shall be held

on June 20, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Adler. All

counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear telephonically at

this conference. The Court will initiate the conference call. 

//

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 67 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 4
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 04cv0807

Failure of any counsel or party to comply with this Order

will result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00807-CAB-BGS Document 67 Filed 05/01/08 Page 4 of 4