Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01723/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01723-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case No. C01-20821 JF ARB

Case No. C-2-1723 JF PVT

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

DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD (SBN 90649)

LAWRENCE M. BOESCH (SBN 114658)

LAW OFFICES OF MAYNARD & HOGAN

1475 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 115

Campbell, California 95008

Telephone: (408) 559-8990

Facsimile: (408) 559-7860

Attorneys for Respondent

IDEC CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE

COMPANY, INC., an Illinois

Corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

IDEC CORPORATION, a California

Corporation,

Respondent.

________________________________

AND RELATED, REMOVED AND STAYED

STATE ACTION

Case No. C01-20821 JF ARB; and

Case No. C02-01723 JF PVT

RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

DATE: 08/05/05

TIME: 10:30 a.m.

DEPT: 3

JUDGE: The Honorable Jeremy D.

 Fogel

Pursuant to Local Rules 235-3 and 16-14, Respondent files

this Supplemental Case Management Conference Statement. This

Statement is being filed unilaterally, rather than as a Joint

Statement. On July 25, 2005, counsel for Respondent learned for

**E-filed 8/2/05**

and Order Continuing CMC Date to 9/9/05

Case 5:02-cv-01723-JF Document 52 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 4
2

RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case No. C01-20821 JF ARB

Case No. C-2-1723 JF PVT

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

the first time that Petitioner had mail-served and e-filed its

Supplemental Case Management Conference Statement.

No attempt had been made first, to seek joint approval or to

collaborate in its contents.

STATUS OF CASE

This case is set for appraisal of property damage under a

provision of the Respondent’s insurance policy issued by the

Petitioner. On July 6, 2005, Court-appointed Umpire, Jack

Eskridge held a preappraisal hearing for in limine motions and

other concerns. Without any contact with Respondent or its

counsel, one of the appraisers, Daniel Chekene, who had been

appointed by Respondent, had miscalendared the hearing, thinking

that it was to go on one of the days in the week of 7/11-15,

rather than on all of those dates.

An outcome of the 7/6/05 preappraisal hearing was that

discovery, which had previously ordered, by Mr. Eskridge, to

close on June 3, 2005, was reopened. It was set to close again on

July 29, 2005.

Numerous discovery disputes and renewed motions in limine

for exclusion of testimony and documentary evidence from experts

disclosed by each side have ensued. The meet-and-confer between

counsel has been rancorous. Umpire Eskridge has indicated in

Case 5:02-cv-01723-JF Document 52 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 4
3

RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case No. C01-20821 JF ARB

Case No. C-2-1723 JF PVT

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

writing that he will not rule on any of these motions until after

discovery has closed on July 29th.

The appraisal hearing is set for August 8-12, 2005. Umpire

Eskridge has made it clear that it will not be postponed or

rescheduled “unless someone dies.” Mr. Hirsch, for Petitioner,

estimated the time required for his case, at two (2) weeks; Mr.

Boesch, representing Respondent, gave a two (2) day-estimate for

his case.

Hirsch probably overestimates the amount of crossexamination his witnesses will draw; Boesch probably

underestimates the amount of time that Hirsch and his associate,

Barrett B. Braun, will spend questioning Respondent’s witnesses.

Each party has disclosed over a half-dozen expert witnesses;

Petitioner has also two (2) “non-retained experts,” along with

having gained leave to depose Respondent’s lead counsel of

record, Douglas Scott Maynard, on the grounds that he will

testify at the hearing as a percipient witness.

By the 7/29 close of discovery, all of Respondent’s experts

will have been deposed, in addition to its lead counsel, except

for one expert witness who has indicated that he may no longer

want to serve in the matter. That expert has not responded to

inquiry either from Respondent’s counsel or from Petitioner’s

Case 5:02-cv-01723-JF Document 52 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 4
4

RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case No. C01-20821 JF ARB

Case No. C-2-1723 JF PVT

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

counsel, as to his intentions. His testimony is the subject of a

motion in limine by Petitioner.

By the 7/29 close of discovery, only three (3) of

Petitioner’s witnesses disclosed as experts will have been

deposed. The reasons are the subject of Respondent’s in limine

motions, to be heard by Umpire Eskridge.

RESOLUTION OF THE 8/5/05 CMC

It is respectfully submitted that the Court might continue

the Case Management Conference until some time in September 2005,

in the prospect that there may be more time needed after August

12, 2005, for the panel to finish its business. Once the matter

is submitted, the panelists may take some time to render their

award, and, if they cannot agree, the insurance policy provides

that the Umpire is to set the amount, taking the panelists’

evaluations into consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 26, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF MAYNARD & HOGAN

By: _____ 

LAWRENCE M. BOESCH, ESQ.

Attorneys for Respondent

C:\wp51\dsm\idec\amico\Supp CMC Stmt.03

The Case Management Conference is continued to 9/9/05 at 10:30.

It is so Ordered. 7/27/05 Judge Jeremy Fogel /s/electronic signature

United States District Court

Case 5:02-cv-01723-JF Document 52 Filed 08/02/05 Page 4 of 4