Stolz v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, 2:18-cv-1923-KJM-KJN. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190115b35
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 10, 2019, the court conducted a hearing with respect to Travelers' application for an order to show cause why third party Debby Naiman should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena to produce documents and appear for deposition. (ECF No. 24.) The court also heard argument with respect to Travelers' ex parte application for an order to compel a site inspection and for sanctions. (ECF No. 35.) At the hearing, attor
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 10, 2019, the court conducted a hearing with respect to Travelers' application for an order to show cause why third party Debby Naiman should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena to produce documents and appear for deposition. (ECF No. 24.) The court also heard argument with respect to Travelers' ex parte application for an order to compel a site inspection and for sanctions. (ECF No. 35.) At the hearing, attorn..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On January 10, 2019, the court conducted a hearing with respect to Travelers' application for an order to show cause why third party Debby Naiman should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena to produce documents and appear for deposition. (ECF No. 24.) The court also heard argument with respect to Travelers' ex parte application for an order to compel a site inspection and for sanctions. (ECF No. 35.) At the hearing, attorney Jeremy Ross appeared on behalf of plaintiff, attorney Edward Murphy appeared on behalf of Travelers, and attorney John Sargetis appeared on behalf of third party Debby Naiman.
After carefully considering the parties' written briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Third party Debby Naiman shall appear for a deposition on January 24, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., in Sacramento, California. She shall also produce all documents responsive to document requests that accompanied the subpoena.
2. Travelers' request for sanctions against Naiman is denied without prejudice.
3. Travelers shall be permitted to conduct a formal site inspection of the subject property on January 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., as previously ordered. The inspection shall go forward whether or not plaintiff is able to personally attend, and plaintiff shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that Travelers has the necessary access to conduct the inspection. Plaintiff's failure to make the property available for inspection on the date/time ordered will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with court orders.
4. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Travelers' ex parte application for an order to compel a site inspection and for monetary and terminating sanctions no later than January 24, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. Travelers may file a reply no later than January 30, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. An evidentiary hearing is set for February 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom. No. 25 before Judge Newman. Plaintiff Mr. Stolz is ordered to personally appear at the hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the court intends to entertain testimony under oath from Mr. Stolz and potentially others as to the circumstances surrounding, and reasons for, his cancellation of the court-ordered January 8, 2019 formal site inspection. Mr. Sargetis agreed to make himself and Debby Naiman available on February 4, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. onwards should their testimony be required. The court will also entertain argument on whether terminating sanctions and/or monetary sanctions are appropriate.
5. In lieu of opposing Travelers' ex parte application and request for sanctions, plaintiff may voluntarily elect to instead pay Travelers $7,268.21 in consultant costs and attorneys' fees as sanctions for his cancellation of the court-ordered inspection. Upon payment of such sanctions, the parties shall promptly notify the court, and the evidentiary hearing will be vacated and Travelers' request for terminating sanctions will be denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. This order resolves ECF No. 24.
Source: Leagle
