Opinion
C.A. No. 99C-06-030
Submitted: June 1, 2001
Decided: June 4, 2001
ORDER
Upon consideration of a Motion for Protective Order and Enforcement of Stay filed by defendants R.R. Bayside, Inc., R.R. Seaside, Inc., R.R. Outlet Malls, Inc., Charter Oak Group, Ltd. and Robert Hludzinski, the responses of other parties, and the record, it appears that:
1. On Friday, June 1, 2001, the above-named defendants filed a motion asking for a protective order and the enforcement of a stay order entered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The moving defendants are all insured in this litigation by Reliance Insurance Company. On May 29, 2001, the Commonwealth Court entered an order placing Reliance in rehabilitation pursuant to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department Act. The order appoints the Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as Rehabilitator. The order provides that "[a]ll actions currently pending in the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or elsewhere against an insured of Reliance are stayed for 60 days or such additional time as the Rehabilitator may request." Because of this stay provision in the Commonwealth Court's order, the defendants filed the motion now before the Court.
2. A hearing on the motion was held on June 1, 2001 at which all parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard. At that time the Court ordered (1) that a deposition scheduled that day would not go forward, (2) that a deposition scheduled for Monday, June 4 would go forward, (3) that depositions in the process of being scheduled for June 7-8 would not go forward, (4) that counsel should find two days in August for depositions to take the place of June 7-8, (5) that Mr. Seitz, counsel for Kimberly A. Reinoehl, et al., should submit a proposed schedule of depositions contemplated for the month of July, and (6) that proceedings relating to a fourth party complaint and third party complaint against ADT Services, Inc. should go forward.
3. At the time of the June 1 hearing, it was the Court's intent to consider the motion further after receipt of the schedule of depositions planned for July. Upon further reflection, however, I have concluded that there does not seem to be any persuasive reason for staying this case at this time, and that the Motion for Protective Order and Enforcement of Stay should be dismissed without prejudice.
4. This Court has previously recognized that the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution does not require it to respect a sister state's injunction against litigation in this state. When it does so, it does so as a matter of comity. This case is scheduled for trial on February 25, 2002. Prior to entry of the Commonwealth Court's May 29, 2001 order, the parties had set aside a total of 11 days between July 9 and August 2, 2001 for depositions of fact witnesses. It appears that depositions of non-resident witnesses have been planned in several states during July. As mentioned, proceedings are in progress relating to a third party complaint and a fourth party complaint against ADT Services, Inc. A case management order filed June 1 contains deadlines to file or amend pleadings of June 29 and July 20, 2001. A schedule for discovery relating to expert witnesses has been established which extends from mid-August to mid-October. It does not appear that there are any events scheduled during the next 60 days which will result in adjudication of any fights of a party insured by Reliance, impair any such party's rights, or otherwise prejudice any such party or Reliance.
Cook v. Delmarva Power Light Co., Del. Super., 505 A.2d 447 (1985).
Id.
5. This case involves approximately nine attorneys of record and thirteen parties. The record of the case indicates that there may be numerous trial witnesses. Trial is estimated to require fifteen trial days. A stay of 60 days will disrupt a discovery schedule which has been carefully organized to accommodate the schedules of all attorneys. Disruption of that schedule will, in turn, jeopardize the February trial date. If a new trial date had to be scheduled, the case would be delayed for months, at best. The prejudice to the plaintiffs in setting into motion a chain of events which will likely result in continuance of the trial outweighs any potential prejudice to the moving defendants from denial of a 60-day stay.
6. Therefore, the defendants' Motion for a Protective Order and Enforcement of the Stay is denied, without prejudice. No further efforts should be taken to schedule any depositions on June 7 or June 8, however, unless all parties agree to such scheduling. If two days for fact witness depositions need to be established in August to take the place of June 7-8, leave to amend Case Management Order No. 3 to do so will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.