Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00860-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guarantee Real Estate
Plaintiff
The Hanover Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

Stipulation and Order

1

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

BRIAN K. CUTTONE (SBN 201314)

ANDREW S. KUCERA (SBN 292817)

CUTTONE & ASSOCIATES

5380 N. Fresno Street, Suite 102

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: 559.228.8490

Facsimile: 559.421.1991

Attorney for Plaintiff, GUARANTEE REAL ESTATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUARANTEE REAL ESTATE, a 

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HANOVER INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a New Hampshire 

corporation, and DOES 1 to 20,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00860-TLN-MJS

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

OUTLINING DISCOVERY AND 

MOTION DATES

_____________________

Complaint Filed: May 7, 2014

Pursuant to the above-referenced Court’s January 21, 2015 Order (“January 21st

Order”) Plaintiff Guarantee Real Estate (“Guarantee”) and Defendant The Hanover Insurance 

Company (“Hanover”) have met and conferred regarding their proposal for phased discovery 

and cross motions for summary judgment. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND 

AGREED, by and between Guarantee and Hanover, through their respective counsel of 

record, as follows:

1. The parties agree that the most efficient was to resolve the case would be to conduct 

and complete discovery in two phases. The first phase of discovery (“Phase 1 Discovery”) 

will focus on the issues of whether Hanover owes Guarantee a duty to defend the claims filed 

against it in the California Superior Court, In And For The County Of Fresno, 

Case 1:14-cv-00860-TLN-MJS Document 32 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 4
Stipulation and Order

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

Case No. 12CECG00576 (the “Duty to Defend”). Phase 1 Discovery will be completed on or 

before June 15, 2015.

2. The parties agree that following the close of Phase 1 Discovery, they will file crossmotions for summary judgment on the Duty to Defend. The cross-motions would be filed on 

or before June 30, 2015.

3. If the above-captioned case is not resolved by the Court’s ruling on the Duty to 

Defend, the parties agree they will commence the second phase of discovery 

(“Phase 2 Discovery) focusing on the remaining issues related to the claims and defenses 

framed by the pleadings. 

4. The parties further agree that all remaining discovery and trial deadlines should be 

determined following the Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 

This includes the deadline to file summary judgment motions with respect to Phase 2 issues.

5. The parties agree that the final discovery cut-off date should not be set for a date prior 

to November 30, 2015.

6. The parties respectfully request that the Court order the following: (1) discovery will 

be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 Discovery and Phase 2 Discovery; (2) Phase 1 Discovery 

will conclude on June 15, 2015; (3) the court will hear cross-motions for summary judgment 

regarding the Duty to Defend; (4) cross-motions shall be filed on or before June 30, 2015; 

(5) if the Court’s rulings on the cross-motions do not resolve the case in its entirety, the 

parties will immediately commence Phase 2 Discovery; (6) the remaining discovery and trial 

deadlines will be set, if necessary, following the Court’s rulings on the cross-motions for 

summary judgment; and (7) the final discovery cut-off date will not be set, prior to 

November 30, 2015.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00860-TLN-MJS Document 32 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 4
Stipulation and Order

3

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

7. There is good cause for the Court to approve this stipulation since: (a) all of the parties 

have agreed to it; (b) the Court has ordered the parties to enter into such a stipulation; and 

(c) the stipulation conserves and efficiently uses the resources of the court and the parties. 

DATED: April 9, 2015 CUTTONE & ASSOCIATES

/s/

BRIAN K. CUTTONE, Attorney for Plaintiff 

GUARANTEE REAL ESTATE

DATED: April 9, 2015 SMITH SMITH & FEELEY LLP

/s/

MICHAEL L. BEAN, Attorney for Defendant 

THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Case 1:14-cv-00860-TLN-MJS Document 32 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 4
Stipulation and Order

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

ORDER

Upon reading the foregoing Stipulation between the parties and good cause appearing 

therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Discovery will be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 Discovery and Phase 2 

Discovery; 

2. Phase 1 Discovery will conclude on June 15, 2015; 

3. The court will consider the parties cross-motions for summary judgment 

regarding the Duty to Defend and will set a hearing accordingly

4. The parties will file the cross-motions on or before June 30, 2015;

5. If the Court’s rulings on the cross-motions do not resolve the case in its 

entirety, the parties will immediately commence Phase 2 Discovery; 

6. The remaining discovery and trial deadlines will be set, if necessary, following 

the Court’s rulings on the cross-motions for summary judgment; and

7. The final discovery cut-off date will not be set prior to November 30, 2015.

Dated: April 13, 2015

Case 1:14-cv-00860-TLN-MJS Document 32 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 4