Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07360/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07360-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ReliaStar Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Mary Wise
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY WISE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-7360 SC

ORDER REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF'S

RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND

STAYING DISCOVERY

DEADLINE ONLY FOR THE

TWO NEUROPSYCHIATRIC

EXAMINATIONS

REQUESTED BY

DEFENDANT

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Application

for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel

Plaintiff to Submit to Independent Medical Examination

("Application to Shorten Time"), Defendant's Motion to Compel

Plaintiff to Submit to Medical Examination ("Mot. to Compel"), and

Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice ("Req. for Judicial

Notice"). See Docket Nos. 26, 29, 31. 

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Application

to Shorten Time. In addition, the Court defers ruling on the

Motion to Compel until Plaintiff has had the opportunity to file

an opposition. Finally, Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice

is DENIED. 

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 41 Filed 09/20/07 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

II. BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2006, plaintiff Mary Wise ("Plaintiff"), filed

a complaint in the Superior Court of California alleging that

defendant Reliastar Life Insurance Company ("Defendant")

unlawfully refused to pay Plaintiff's disability benefits. Compl.

¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A, Attach. to Def.'s Pet. for Removal, Docket No. 1. 

Defendant filed a Petition for Removal to the United States

District Court on November 30, 2006. Docket No. 1. The parties

had previously agreed to a schedule for discovery. Docket No. 22. 

On September 19, 2007, Defendant filed the Application to

Shorten Time, the Motion to Compel and the Request for Judicial

Notice.

III. DISCUSSION

Before the Court rules on Defendant's Motion to Compel, the

Court invites Plaintiff to file opposition papers to this motion. 

This opposition must be filed no later than 12:00 p.m., Wednesday,

October 3, 2007, at which time the Court will deem the matter

submitted. The discovery deadline for the two neuropsychiatric

exams requested by Defendant is hereby stayed pending resolution

of this matter. The deadlines for all other discovery matters

remain unchanged from the Court's Order regarding the Stipulation

Re Setting Additional Deadlines for Expert Discovery. See Docket

No. 22. Pursuant to this Stipulation, the deadlines for discovery

are as follows: for non-expert discovery, September 28, 2007; for

expert disclosures, October 8, 2007; for rebuttal/supplemental

expert disclosures, October 22, 2007; and for expert discovery,

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 41 Filed 09/20/07 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

November 8, 2007. See id.

Defendant filed the Application to Shorten Time in an effort

to seek the two neuropsychiatric exams before the first discovery

deadline. The discovery deadline for these two exams, however, is

stayed. Thus, Defendant's Application to Shorten Time is

unnecessary and is therefore denied.

Finally, Defendant has requested that the Court take judicial

notice of Plaintiff's original Complaint filed in Superior Court

and two recent decisions by Magistrate Judges in this district. 

See Req. for Judicial Notice at 1. Defendant, however, has

offered no reason why judicial notice regarding these documents

has been requested.

Defendant submitted Plaintiff's initial Complaint and it is

therefore already part of the record. See Def.'s Pet. for Removal,

Ex. A, Docket No. 1. It is unclear to the Court why judicial

notice of the Complaint is necessary or even appropriate.

Regarding the recent Magistrate Judges' opinions, the Court

is equally unclear why judicial notice is sought. Defendant is

free to cite to any appropriate authority when making legal

arguments in the pleadings. The Court, however, sees no reason to

take judicial notice of these opinions without any explanation by

Defendant of their relevance.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Application to Shorten

Time is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Compel Medical Examination

is STAYED pending Plaintiff's opportunity to oppose. This

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 41 Filed 09/20/07 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

opposition must be filed no later than 12:00 p.m., Wednesday,

October 3, 2007, at which time the Court will deem the matter

submitted. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 41 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 4