1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ST. MICHAELS ANGLICAN 

CATHOLIC CHURCHOF PANAMA 

CITY FLORIDA INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:20-cv-235-AW-MJF

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

JOINT REPORT FOR PARTIES PLANNING CONFERENCE AND

PROPOSED ALTERNATE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

DEADLINES

The Parties, pursuant to Rule 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

pursuant to Allen Winsor’s September 9, 2020 Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 5), 

hereby file the following Joint Report for the Parties’ Planning Conference and 

would state as follows:

1. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE

On September 17, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff, R. Waylon Thompson, Esq. and 

Lauren K. Dodge, Esq., and counsel for Defendant, Alexander S. Whitlock, Esq.

attended, by telephone a Joint Planning Conference in this matter. Counsel jointly 

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 11
2

states that the following statements and proposed deadlines were agreed upon by all

parties and respectfully requests this Court adopt the Parties’ proposed deadlines.

2. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1, the parties have conferred regarding Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction over this case and are in agreement with same.

3. NATURE AND BASIS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Plaintiff’s position:

Plaintiff’s, ST. MICHAELS ANGLICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF 

PANAMA CITY FLORIDA INCORPORATED’s, property located at 711 Venetian 

Way, Panama City, Florida 32405, insured under a policy of insurance policy 

number 0121835-02-891707 with Defendant, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY. On or about October 10, 2018, Plaintiff’s property was damaged by 

the forces of Hurricane Michael, which Plaintiff contends was a covered loss under 

the policy issued by Defendant. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant for the 

damages to the property. Defendant thereafter determined that a covered loss 

occurred, inspected the property and completed an estimate indicating its assessment 

of the value of the loss and subsequently provided the estimate to Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

contends Defendant has failed to pay the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions 

of the policy of insurance as the gross amount of loss it determined was insufficient 

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 11
3

and inconsistent with the coverage provided by the policy. Plaintiff contends 

Defendant’s gross under payment of Plaintiff’s claim is a breach of insurance 

contract.

Defendant’s position:

Defendant, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, issued Policy 

No. 0121835-02-891707 to Plaintiff, which insured its property located at 711 

Venetian Way, Panama City, Florida 32405. The Policy provided Building and 

Personal Property Coverage to the Plaintiff and provided that Plaintiff’s covered 

Building and Personal Property are valued on a Replacement Cost basis. Following 

Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant timely inspected Plaintiff’s property and determined the 

value of the loss. Defendant subsequently re-inspected Plaintiff’s property on two 

occasions, at Plaintiff’s request, and re-adjusted its determination regarding the 

value of Plaintiff’s loss when additional information was provided. Defendant has 

issued payments, and supplemental payments, based on its re-inspections and the 

additional information obtained, to the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of the Policy. To date, Plaintiff has elected not to undertake repairs to its 

covered property, which is required under the Policy in order to recover the 

Replacement Cost value of its claim. Defendant has performed as required under the 

terms and conditions of the policy and has not breached the policy of insurance.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 11
4

4. PROMPT SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITY

Once the current pending pleadings have been resolved and Defendant has 

responded to Plaintiffs’ initial paper discovery, mediation may assist in reaching a 

prompt resolution or settlement. 

5. PARTIES DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS

The parties proposed discovery requirements and dates are set forth in the 

table below. Otherwise, the date for commencing discovery is September 17, 2020.

A. Discovery will be needed on these subjects: 

(i) Plaintiff’s allegations regarding its claims, as set forth in their 

Complaint;

(ii) The alleged damages sought by Plaintiff and any efforts to 

mitigate those damages;

(iii) Defendant’s alleged Affirmative Defenses that will be set forth 

in its Answer and any other defenses that may become applicable 

during discovery;

(iv) All other issues raised by the pleadings;

(v) Any expert disclosures and discovery; and

(vi) All other materials that will reasonably lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 4 of 11
5

B. Maximum number of Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions by 

each party and the response due dates are to be governed by the applicable Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court.

C. Each party shall be limited to 10 depositions, unless otherwise agreed 

to by the parties or ordered by the Court. 

D. Maximum number of Requests for Production by each party and the 

response due dates are to be governed by the applicable Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Local Rules of this Court.

E. All written discovery shall be propounded so that responses are due by 

the discovery deadline, May 7, 2021.

F. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories and Request 

for Production, served with the initial Complaint, within thirty (30) days of this 

planning conference.

G. If Defendant wishes to re-inspect Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff consents 

to same. 

H. The parties Corporate Disclosure Statement, if not already filed, will be 

filed and served by September 23, 2020.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 5 of 11
6

6. DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONIC OR COMPUTER BASED 

MEDIA

The parties will likely request or produce information from electronic or 

computer-based media. 

A. Disclosure or production will be limited to data reasonably available to 

the parties in the ordinary course of business. 

B. The parties will make every effort to produce the electronic documents 

either via electronic dropbox/file sharing or on compact discs or flash drives.

C. The parties agree that reasonable measures have been taken to preserve 

potentially discoverable data from alteration or destruction in the ordinary course of 

business.

D. If privileged information is inadvertently produced, the parties will 

comply with Fed. R. Evid. 502 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). 

No other problems are anticipated by the parties in connection with electronic 

discovery. 

7. TRIAL DATE ESTIMATE

Due to the current uncertainty surrounding Covid-19 and its impact on the 

parties ability to conduct discovery and the judicial systems ability to conduct jury 

trials, the parties are concerned that this case will not be ready for trial within eight 

(8) months. Plaintiff requests that this matter be set for trial to commence on June 

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 6 of 11
7

7, 2021. Plaintiff request that the parties submit their Joint Final Pre-Trial Statement 

by May 14, 2021 and that the Final Pre-Trial Conference be held by May 21, 2021.

However, Defendant requests a trial date of August 2, 2021 or later. Church 

Mutual’s corporate representative, Lynn Renlund, has a conflict with the current 

two-week trial period commencing July 7, 2021. Defendant has timely filed its 

Notice of Conflict with Trial Date (ECF No. 6). Defendant believes that an August 

trial date is necessary to accommodate all discovery and depositions required for 

each party to fully prepare their respective cases as well as prepare any dispositive 

motions. Further, this date accommodates the potential for a mediation after the 

completion of all written discovery and depositions. Defendant believes that this is 

the best method to ensure a meaningful alternative dispute resolution process with 

the highest potential to resolve the matter without proceeding to trial as well as 

accommodating for any potential difficulties related to COVID-19 that may arise 

and impede any inspection, travel, or other discovery. Defendant request that the 

parties submit their Joint Final Pre-Trial Statement by July 2, 2021 and that the Final 

Pre-Trial Conference be held by July 9, 2021.

8. RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES

The parties will complete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on or before October 1, 

2020.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 7 of 11
8

9. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION

This case should not be subject to the Manual for Complex Litigation.

10. PARTIES PROPOSED TIMETABLES AND DEADLINES

The following table represents the parties proposed timetables and deadlines 

for this case:

EVENT PROPOSED DATES

Join Parties and Amend Pleadings

 

Plaintiff – October 29, 2020

Defendant – November 16, 2020

After these dates, amending the 

pleadings and/or joining additional 

parties will only be permitted with 

leave of the Court and for good 

cause. The Court will consider, 

inter alia, whether the granting of 

leave would delay trial.

Mandatory Initial Disclosures, pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)

All Parties – October 1, 2020

Mediator must be selected November 30, 2020

Expert Witness Disclosure Plaintiff – January 22, 2021

Defendant – February 15, 2021

Supplementations of reports or 

information shall be made by all 

parties reasonably as they become 

aware that information previously 

disclosed is incomplete or 

incorrect, and in any event, not later 

than the end of the discovery 

period and again thirty (30) days 

before the beginning of the 

session of Court at which the case 

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 8 of 11
9

is set for trial, in conjunction with 

the other disclosures required by 

Rule 26(a)(3). 

Witness and Exhibit List Under Rule 26(a)(3), in accordance 

with the Court’s Scheduling Order 

to be entered after completion of 

discovery. The Final date to file 

objections under Rule 26(a)(3) is 

14-days after the parties’ Rule

26(a)(3) disclosures, or as 

otherwise set by the Court.

Discovery Deadline May 7, 2021

Estimated Length of Trial 5 days

Jury/Non-Jury Jury 

The Parties disagree as to the following: 

A. The parties disagree on the deadline to file dispositive motions and 

Daubert motions:

I. Plaintiff requests that the deadline to file dispositive and Daubert 

motions be May 7, 2021.

II. Defendant requests that the deadline for dispositive motions be 21-

days after the close of discovery, May 28, 2021. Defendant has no 

opposition to the deadline to submit Daubert motions being the same 

day, permitted that the parties may seek leave from the Court to file 

a Daubert motion after that deadline for good cause.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 9 of 11
10

B. The parties disagree as to the deadline to mediate. Plaintiff has requested 

a mediation deadline of January 15, 2021. Defendant requests that the 

deadline to mediate be 14-days after the close of discovery, May 21, 2021.

C. Plaintiff and Defendant disagree on the deadline to file all other motions, 

other than dispositive motions & Daubert motions, including motions in 

limine:

I. Plaintiff has requested a May 3, 2021 deadline.

II. Defendant does not agree with a blanket deadline prohibiting all 

motions as it would prevent the parties from seeking redress from 

the Court for any issues that may arise from the 4-days prior to the 

close of discovery through trial. Defendant requests that this 

deadline be 14-days after the close of discovery, May 21, 2021, and 

that the parties may seek leave of the Court to file later motions for 

good cause.

The Parties reserve the right to move for a protective order with regard to any 

subject of discovery, including but not limited to the subjects listed above.

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 10 of 11
11

11. PENDING MOTIONS

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss are 

pending. 

MANUEL & THOMPSON, P.A. GUILDAY LAW, P.A.

/s/ R. Waylon Thompson______ /s/Alexander S. Whitlock _

R. Waylon Thompson, Esq. George W. Hatch, III, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0769381 Florida Bar No.: 0072028

waylon@manuelthompson.com george@guildaylaw.com

Lauren K. Dodge, Esq. Alexander S. Whitlock, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1003160 Florida Bar No. 118001

lauren@manuelthompson.com alex@guildaylaw.com

P.O. Box 1470 1983 Centre Pointe Blvd., Ste. 200

Panama City, Florida 32402 Tallahassee, Florida 32308

Telephone: (850) 785-5555 Telephone: (850) 224-7091

Facsimile: (850) 785-0133 Facsimile: (850) 222-2593

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant

Case 5:20-cv-00235-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 09/28/20 Page 11 of 11