ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTEX HOMES, 2:15-cv-0037 TLN KJN. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151207b67
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On December 3, 2015, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference with respect to non-party Shinnick & Ryan LLP's ("S&R") motion to quash the subpoena served on it by defendants Centex Homes and Centex Homes Realty Company (collectively, "Centex"). At the conference, Michael Quinn appeared on behalf of S&R, Timothy Heggem appeared on behalf of Centex, and Nathaniel Clark appeared on behalf of plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On December 3, 2015, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference with respect to non-party Shinnick & Ryan LLP's ("S&R") motion to quash the subpoena served on it by defendants Centex Homes and Centex Homes Realty Company (collectively, "Centex"). At the conference, Michael Quinn appeared on behalf of S&R, Timothy Heggem appeared on behalf of Centex, and Nathaniel Clark appeared on behalf of plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance C..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
On December 3, 2015, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference with respect to non-party Shinnick & Ryan LLP's ("S&R") motion to quash the subpoena served on it by defendants Centex Homes and Centex Homes Realty Company (collectively, "Centex"). At the conference, Michael Quinn appeared on behalf of S&R, Timothy Heggem appeared on behalf of Centex, and Nathaniel Clark appeared on behalf of plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company ("Travelers").
After reviewing the parties' joint letter brief (ECF No. 41) and the court's discussion with the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. In light of continuing informal dispute resolution proceedings in the underlying Brown construction defects litigation pending in state court, as well as the parties' forthcoming stipulation proposing an extension of the discovery completion deadline, the court GRANTS S&R's motion to quash the subpoena. However, the motion is granted without prejudice to Centex's ability to renew its request to depose S&R (and propound document requests on S&R) in the future, if the posture of the underlying Brown action changes or Centex otherwise deems it reasonably necessary. The court expresses no opinion at this juncture with respect to whether such a deposition and document requests would be permitted.
2. In light of the forthcoming stipulation and proposed order to extend the discovery completion deadline, the parties shall promptly meet and confer, and advise the court as to which currently pending discovery motions should be withdrawn without prejudice, to be re-noticed at a later date, if necessary. The parties are reminded that they also have the option of requesting informal telephonic discovery conferences in lieu of re-noticing formal motions, and are encouraged to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
