ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING FOR DEFENDANT ST. PAUL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXTENDING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

Now before the Court is Defendants St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America's ("Travelers") motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company's ("Navigators") theory of St. Paul's liability hinges on the status of St. Paul's insurance broker, California Financial, as St. Paul's agent.

On February 24, 2015, the Court granted Navigators request to continue the summary judgment motion pending additional discovery regarding California Financial's status as St. Paul's agent. ECF. No. 86. On May 14, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement explaining the status of Defendants' original motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69), including (1) whether and how the dismissal of Defendant Travelers (ECF Nos. 88, 89) affects the motion; (2) whether and how the intervening cross-motions for summary judgment regarding Defendant North American Capacity Insurance Company's ("NAC") duty to defend (ECF Nos. 90, 93) affect the original summary judgment motion; (3) an update on the status of the additional discovery that Navigators requested; and (4) a proposed supplemental briefing schedule for the original summary judgment motion that permits the parties to fairly and adequately address the new discovery. ECF No. 95.

Pursuant to the Court's order, Navigators and St. Paul met and conferred and filed a joint status update report. ECF No. 97. Their joint report responded to the four requests in the Court's May 14 Order as follows: First, given Navigators' dismissal of Travelers (ECF No. 89), the court no longer has to rule on the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) as it pertains to Travelers, but the Court should still rule on the remaining portion of the motion filed by St. Paul. Second, the intervening cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant NAC and Plaintiff Navigators (ECF Nos. 90 and 93) do not affect the original motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Travelers and St. Paul (ECF No. 69). Third, the additional discovery that plaintiff requested is complete, including the deposition of Linda Friedlin and the production of documents from Crouse & Associates. Fourth, if the Court grants supplemental briefing, the parties suggest that Navigators' supplemental brief be due no later than two weeks from the date of the court's order requiring such briefing; and St. Paul's reply be due no later than two weeks from the date of the filing of Navigators' supplemental brief.

Navigators believes that supplemental briefing is necessary to address the deposition testimony of Linda Friedlin. St. Paul does not believe that supplemental briefing is necessary. In its earlier order, the Court granted Navigator's request for additional discovery because St. Paul's motion for summary judgment turned, in part, on whether California Financial acted as St. Paul's agent. ECF No. 86. Now that discovery on this important issue is complete, supplemental briefing is appropriate so that the Court can make a fully informed ruling.

Plaintiff Navigators is hereby ORDERED to submit to the Court a supplemental brief of not more than five (5) pages explaining how the facts uncovered in Ms. Friedlin's deposition affect the issue of whether California Financial acted as St. Paul's agent. Navigators shall submit their brief within seven (7) days of the signature date of this Order. St. Paul may submit a supplemental brief on this issue of not more than five (5) pages within seven (7) days of Navigators' submission.

The parties also request in their joint report that the Court extend the expert disclosure deadline by thirty (30) days after the Court's ruling on St. Paul's motion for summary judgment. The parties request an extension of the deadline because the scope of the Court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment could affect which experts the parties ultimately decide to disclose. The parties' request to extend the expert disclosure deadline by thirty (30) days after the Court's ruling on St. Paul's motion for summary judgment is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.