JOINT REPORT PAGE 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

LINDA HUGHES, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-00723 

 § 

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE § 

INSURANCE COMPANY, § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

JOINT REPORT

On September 2, 2022, Aaron L. Mitchell, attorney for Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 

Company, Racchel Cabrera, attorney for Linda Hughes, conferred as required by the Court’s Order 

Requiring Scheduling Conference and Report for Contents of Scheduling Order. The parties 

represent to the Court as follows: 

1. A brief statement of the claims and defenses. 

This lawsuit arises from a dispute about Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s insurance claim 

for water damage caused by a burst water heater occurring on or about June 14, 2021 at the 

residence located at 428 County Road 4681, Boyd, Texas 76023. 

Plaintiff Linda Hughes (“Hughes”) asserts causes of action against Defendant for breach 

of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code 541 and 542, violations of the Texas Deceptive 

Trade Practices Act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff currently seeks 

actual damages, policy benefits, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, consequential 

damages, court costs, treble damages, statutory interest, exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. 

Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty”) contends it has already 

paid Plaintiff for all covered damages at her residence in accordance with the policy’s terms and 

conditions and that it has no further obligation to make additional payments to Hughes. After 

receiving notice of Hughes’ water claim, Liberty immediately responded to the notice, timely 

inspected the property, and issued payment in accordance with the policy’s terms and conditions 

for all covered damages. Liberty denies that it breached the insurance contract with Hughes and 

denies that it committed any violations of the Texas Insurance Code or the Texas Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act. Liberty denies Hughes’ claims that it breached the duty of good faith and fair 

Case 4:22-cv-00723-O Document 6 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 50
JOINT REPORT PAGE 2 

dealing, and denies that Hughes is entitled to any of the damages she seeks in her petition. 

 

2. A proposed time limit to file motions for leave to join other parties. 

The parties propose a deadline of November 8, 2022 to join other parties to this lawsuit.

3. A proposed time limit to amend the pleadings. 

The parties propose a deadline of January 13, 2023 to amend the pleadings. 

4. Proposed time limits to file various types of motions, including dispositive motions. 

The parties propose a deadline of September 15, 2023 to file any dispositive motions, 

including motions for summary judgment. 

5. A proposed time limit for initial designation of experts. 

The parties propose a deadline of April 3, 2023 for initial designation of experts. 

6. A proposed limit for responsive designation of experts. 

The parties propose a deadline of May 3, 2023 for responsive designation of experts. 

7. A proposed time limit for objections to experts, including the filing of Daubert or 

similar motions.

The parties propose a deadline of June 5, 2023 for filing objections to experts, including 

any Daubert or similar motions. 

8. A proposed plan and schedule for discovery, a statement of the subjects on which 

discovery may be needed, a time limit to complete factual discovery and expert 

discovery, and a statement of whether discovery should be conducted in phases or 

limited to or focused upon particular issues.

Plaintiff states that discovery is needed for claims handling practices of Defendant and 

Plaintiff anticipates the need to depose Defendant’s adjusters and experts. The Parties agree to a 

proposed deadline of May 3, 2023 to complete discovery and do not propose that discovery be 

conducted in phases. 

Defendant states that discovery may be needed on Plaintiff’s alleged damages to her home. 

Defendant proposes a deadline of May 3, 2023 for discovery and does not propose that discovery 

be conducted in phases. 

9. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these 

rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed. 

Case 4:22-cv-00723-O Document 6 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 51
JOINT REPORT PAGE 3 

The Parties do not believe any deviations or limitations on discovery beyond what is 

contemplated by the Court’s rules or the local rules, are necessary. 

10. Proposed means for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information 

(“ESI”) and a statement of any disputes regarding the disclosure or discovery of ESI. 

The Parties do not believe that the production of ESI is necessary in this case. 

11. Any proposals regarding the handling and protection of privileged or trialpreparation material that should be reflected in a Court Order. 

 The Parties do not anticipate that this case will involve production of privileged materials, 

other than certain components of the insurance policy at issue, which can be minimally redacted 

to avoid the disclosure of confidential information. 

12. A proposed trial date, estimated number of days required for trial and whether a jury 

has been demanded. 

The Parties propose a trial date of January 15, 2024. This will give the parties time to 

conduct discovery, file any anticipated motions for summary judgment, and to receive rulings on 

the anticipated motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has made a jury demand. The parties 

anticipate trial, if necessary, could be completed in 2-3 days. 

13. A proposed date for further settlement negotiations. 

The parties believe that an early mediation session could be appropriate for resolving the 

claims asserted, and propose a deadline of March 31, 2023 for completion of mediation. In the 

event the mediation session is not successful, the parties propose that further settlement 

negotiations take place after the Court has ruled on the anticipated dispositive motions. 

14. Objections to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) asserted at the Scheduling Conference, and 

other proposed modifications to the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures 

under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) 

were made or will be made. 

The parties have no objections, and anticipate that the initial disclosures for the Parties will 

be completed by September 30, 2022. 

15. Whether the parties will consent to trial (jury or non-jury) before U.S. Magistrate 

Judge Cureton or U.S. Magistrate Judge Ray. 

The Parties do not consent to trial before a Magistrate Judge. 

16. Whether the parties are considering mediation or arbitration to resolve this litigation 

and a statement of when it would be most effective. If mediation is proposed, the name 

of any mediator the parties jointly recommend to mediate the case. 

Case 4:22-cv-00723-O Document 6 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 52
JOINT REPORT PAGE 4 

The Parties believe an early mediation session would be appropriate for resolving the 

claims asserted, and propose a deadline of March 31, 2023 for completion of mediation. In the 

event the mediation session is not successful, the parties propose that further settlement 

negotiations take place after the Court has ruled on the anticipated dispositive motions. The parties 

recommend Wade McMullen be appointed as mediator. 

17. Any other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery that the parties believe will 

facilitate expeditious and orderly preparation for trial. 

None at this time.

18. Whether a conference with the Court is desired. 

The parties do not believe that a conference with the Court is necessary at this time.

19. Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case, including any 

other Orders that should be entered by the Court under R. 16(b) and (c) and 26(c).

None at this time.

Status Report on Settlement Negotiations

At the time of the conference, the parties have not engaged in any initial settlement talks. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron L. Mitchell 

Aaron L. Mitchell

State Bar No. 14205590 

aaronm@tbmmlaw.com 

Kieran W. Leary 

State Bar No. 24108517 

kieranl@tbmmlaw.com 

Lori Murphy

State Bar No. 14701744 

Lorim@tbmmlaw.com

Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi, LLP

2811 McKinney Ave., Suite 250 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

Telephone: (214) 665-0100 

Facsimile: (214) 665-0199 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case 4:22-cv-00723-O Document 6 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 53
JOINT REPORT PAGE 5 

 /s/ Racchel D. Cabrera 

 Shaun W. Hodge 

 State Bar No. 24052995 

 shodge@hodgefirm.com 

 Racchel D. Cabrera

 State Bar No. 24109093 

 rcabrera@hodgefirm.com 

 The Hodge Law Firm, PLLC 

 The Historic Runge House 

 1301 Market Street 

 Galveston, Texas 77550 

 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 

 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on September 6, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon all counsel of record. 

/s/ Aaron L. Mitchell 

Aaron L. Mitchell

Case 4:22-cv-00723-O Document 6 Filed 09/06/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 54