Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN V. ACOSTA , Magistrate Judge . Third-party defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and third-party plaintiffs the Marine Group, LLC, Northwest Marine, Inc., Northwest Marine Iron Works, and BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. (collectively "Marine") seek an order from the court relieving the parties from a provision in the Opinion and Order entered May 10, 2016 (ECF No. 950) (the "Opinion"), which addressed Marine's motion to reconsider 1 a prior ru
Summary: ORDER JOHN V. ACOSTA , Magistrate Judge . Third-party defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and third-party plaintiffs the Marine Group, LLC, Northwest Marine, Inc., Northwest Marine Iron Works, and BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. (collectively "Marine") seek an order from the court relieving the parties from a provision in the Opinion and Order entered May 10, 2016 (ECF No. 950) (the "Opinion"), which addressed Marine's motion to reconsider 1 a prior rul..
More
ORDER
JOHN V. ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge.
Third-party defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and third-party plaintiffs the Marine Group, LLC, Northwest Marine, Inc., Northwest Marine Iron Works, and BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. (collectively "Marine") seek an order from the court relieving the parties from a provision in the Opinion and Order entered May 10, 2016 (ECF No. 950) (the "Opinion"), which addressed Marine's motion to reconsider1 a prior ruling2 on St. Paul's motion to compel.3 Specifically, the parties ask the court to withdraw a provision in the Opinion limiting Marine's production of documents requested by St. Paul to attorneys and experts of St. Paul, thereby preventing the disclosure of such documents to St. Paul.
The parties represent they have reached a settlement in principal on the restriction set forth in the relevant provision. They now jointly move for an order that the prior restriction to attorney and experts only no longer applies to St. Paul. Accordingly, based on the reported settlement in principle and joint request;
IT IS ORDERED that the language of the Opinion set forth in the last two paragraphs of Section III found on pages 13 and 14 do not apply to St. Paul, are no longer warranted, and are hereby stricken from the Opinion.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 921
2. ECF No. 899
3. ECF No. 695
