WILLIAMSBURG NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROCKET ENGINEERING CORP., 2:16-cv-1052-KJM-KJN. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170525944
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 24, 2017
Latest Update: May 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On May 23, 2017, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference in this matter. At the conference, attorney Susan Welde appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Will Skinner appeared on behalf of defendant. After carefully considering the parties' joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement and further discussion with the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's motion to compel (ECF N
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On May 23, 2017, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference in this matter. At the conference, attorney Susan Welde appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Will Skinner appeared on behalf of defendant. After carefully considering the parties' joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement and further discussion with the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's motion to compel (ECF No..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On May 23, 2017, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference in this matter. At the conference, attorney Susan Welde appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Will Skinner appeared on behalf of defendant. After carefully considering the parties' joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement and further discussion with the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion to compel (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED on the terms outlined in this order.
2. The fact discovery completion deadline is extended for the limited purpose of allowing defendant's expert to conduct a non-destructive examination/inspection1 of the aircraft equipment at issue in his laboratory in VVancouver, British Columbia. Because it is anticipated that the equipmment will be shipped to Vancouver, examined, and returned to plaintiff prior to the June 5, 2017 expert witness disclosure deadline, this brief, limited extension will not impact other deadlines in the operative scheduling order.
3. Defendant shall bear the cost of packaging and shiipping the equipment to and from Vancouver, British Columbia, and shall maintain a proper chain of custody for the equipment.
4. Defendant shall videotape the entire examination/inspection, starting from the unpacking of the equipment at defendant's expert's laboratory through repacking the equipment for its return to plaintiff, annd shall provide plaintiff with a copy of the videotape.
5. Plaintiff's counsel and/or plaintiff's experts may attend the examination/inspection by defendant's expert at their own cost.
6. The May 25, 2017 formal hearing on this matter is VACATED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant has proposed a protocol for the examination/inspection. (See ECF No. 10-1, Ex. 4.) The parties are directed to promptly meet and confer in good faith to reach agreement regarding an acceptable examination/inspection protocol.
Source: Leagle
