Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01448/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01448-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Transatlantic Reinsurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

NO. C03-1448 TEH 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

ORDER VACATING CASE

MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

NO. C03-5470 TEH

This Court is in receipt of Defendant Transatlantic Reinsurance Company’s

(“Defendant’s”) motion for leave to designate expert and file expert report and Plaintiff

Continental Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff’s”) opposition thereto. The Court also

acknowledges the parties’ joint request for an expedited ruling on the papers. However, due

to both parties’ apparent gamesmanship and failures to coordinate with one another to meet

the discovery deadlines ordered by this Court, the Court orders that the parties appear as

scheduled on August 7, 2006, to discuss Defendant’s motion. At that hearing, both parties

shall also be prepared to SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the

reasons discussed below. 

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 76 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As set forth in the Court’s June 20, 2006 order, the Court made clear on two separate

occasions that further discovery extensions should not be expected and would likely be

denied. Nevertheless, the parties filed a joint motion to extend multiple discovery deadlines

on June 14, offering no compelling reason for filing this application only two days before the

June 16 deadline by which Defendant was required to name all experts. While Defendant

argues that the ongoing violation of the Court-ordered discovery schedule was “inadvertent,”

Mot. ¶ 12, Defendant attests to the fact that “[b]oth parties were aware that the Court would

not be able to render its decision on the Joint Motion until, at the earliest, on Monday,

June 19, 2006, after the June 16 deadline.” Mot. ¶ 14. Defendant thereby acknowledges that

both parties expected Defendant to be in violation of a Court-ordered deadline before the

Court could issue a ruling on the joint motion. 

Defendant also fails to offer any compelling reason for waiting until May 5 to request

that Plaintiff produce a witness who could speak to the umbrella liability policy form. While

Defendant argues that no previously deposed witness addressed this issue, no explanation is

provided for Defendant’s or Defendant’s expert’s failure to discover a need for such a

deposition prior to this late date. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff accurately points out that Defendant provides no compelling

reason for refusing to designate Mr. Powers as an expert prior to deposing Mr. Gethard, the

witness ultimately produced by Plaintiff on the umbrella liability policy issue. In the instant

motion, Defendant merely suggests that “in the interest of economy and an attempt to

streamline the discovery process, Defendant believed that it simply made more sense to

depose [Mr. Gethard] prior to naming its experts since, depending on the outcome of Mr.

Gethard’s deposition, it might only be necessary for Defendant to name one expert as

opposed to two.” Mot. ¶ 9. However, Defendant belied this argument by postponing Mr.

Gethard’s deposition, originally scheduled for June 23, and providing Plaintiff with

Mr. Power’s expert report on that date instead. Resp. at 3. The Court therefore finds

Defendant’s inability to depose Mr. Gethard earlier to be an insufficient rationale for

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 76 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant’s failure to meet the June 16 deadline, as that deposition was apparently

nonessential to Defendant’s decision to name Mr. Powers as an expert.

However, Defendant is not singularly responsible for the discovery delays in this case. 

While Defendant’s May 5 request for a witness was undoubtedly late in the process,

Plaintiff’s failure to provide such a witness before June 23 is also unexplained. After

realizing the need for a witness on the umbrella liability policy issue, Defendant appears to

have made a good faith effort to expedite this deposition, contacting Plaintiff multiple times

– on May 8, May 12, and May 26 – in an effort to schedule this deposition. Mot. ¶ 6. 

Despite Defendant’s multiple follow-ups with Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not identify a witness

until June 9 and did not schedule the deposition until June 23. Mot. ¶ 8. While Defendant

apparently waited until June 9 to notify Plaintiff that Defendant “required” this deposition

prior to the naming of their experts, that notification did nothing to speed Plaintiff along in

making Mr. Gethard accessible to Defendant. In fact, as did Defendant, Plaintiff also seemed

to rely on the misguided assumption that the Court would grant yet another discovery

extension, even though it had twice made clear that it did not anticipate doing so because it

appeared that the parties were not moving discovery along expeditiously.

Plaintiff also raises the Court’s suspicion by its sudden and vehement opposition to

Defendant’s current motion only a week after the parties’ had agreed to such an extension. It

appears that Plaintiff is attempting to take advantage of the Court’s denial of an extension to

prevent Defendant from designating this expert, even though both parties had previously

agreed to and seemingly relied on such an extension. 

In short, Defendant’s current motion and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto evidence

gamesmanship on the part of both parties. This gamesmanship serves only to frustrate the

proceedings of an already unduly prolonged case. Since both parties appear intent on

obfuscating the other’s discovery efforts and, consequently, the proceedings before this

Court, the Court sees no reason to expedite ruling on this motion. The Court recognizes that

a non-expedited decision will make the previously established discovery and motion

deadlines impossible to meet, and a further setback in this case is contrary to the Court’s

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 76 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

desire to avoid delays in case proceedings. However, as the parties have demonstrated their

unwillingness to cooperate and abide by the Court-ordered deadlines, the Court hereby

VACATES all discovery and motion filing deadlines as well as the case management

conference previously scheduled for July 24, 2006. The Court will set new dates and

deadlines after it rules on Defendant’s pending motion.

As discussed above, the Court will hear argument on Defendant’s motion as scheduled

on August 7, 2006, at 10:00 AM. Both parties are also ordered to appear in person before

the Court to show cause at that time as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the

unnecessary delays in discovery that have ultimately resulted in a violation of this Court’s

orders. Any written response to this Order to Show Cause must be filed on or before

July 24, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/06/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 76 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 4