Opinion
No. 01cv1195-L(RBB)
August 22, 2002
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
This case insurance dispute concerns a commercial general liability insurance contract provided by plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut to defendant Walker Zanger, Inc. Immediately after filing the complaint, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of the duty to defend. The court agreed with plaintiff that the policy did not cover the insured's claim, thus, plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant in the underlying action. After the court issued that order, the magistrate judge conducted the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and attempted to settle the remaining issue as to whether plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of all sums it paid to defend the underlying action. Though no settlement was reached at that conference, the magistrate scheduled another settlement conference for September 2002. Aside from a pretrial conference, no other dates were set.
Plaintiff has calendared a motion for summary judgment on the issue of reimbursement on this court's August 26, 2002 civil calendar. Plaintiff asserts in its motion papers that settlement negotiations failed, and seeks $1.5 million in damages.
Defendant asks the court to continue the summary judgment hearing. At the very least, defendant asks that the time for filing the opposition brief be extended a few days until plaintiff responds to the pending interrogatory request. Defendant contends that it needs to incorporate the information from those interrogatories into its opposition papers. Specifically, defendant contends that its affirmative defenses may affect plaintiffs right to reimbursement. In addition, defendant asks the court to continue the hearing for 90 days to allow the completion of the discovery process. For example, defendant has scheduled depositions of two of plaintiffs employees for August 27 and 28.
Plaintiff opposes the continuance and contends that the discovery is irrelevant.
The court is persuaded by defendant's position. While the court agrees that the case should be resolved with alacrity, the court discerns no need for plaintiffs rush to judgment. The parties should complete the necessary discovery before the court hears the summary judgment motion. Thus, the court agrees that the plaintiffs pending summary judgment motion should be deferred until the completion of the relevant discovery. To that end, the court orders the parties to complete discovery on or before November 1, 2002. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the reimbursement issue is continued to December 2, 2002. Any other motions must be filed or heard by January 27, 2003. The parties shall comply with the Local Rules to prepare for the pretrial conference. Local Rule 16.1
More importantly, the court directs the parties to take full advantage of the assistance and expertise of the magistrate judge to attempt to settle the remaining dispute. The parties shall attend the mandatory settlement conference (currently scheduled for September 9, 2002 at 3:00 p.m.) and shall participate in those discussions in good faith. If appropriate, the magistrate judge may order the parties to attend additional settlement conferences. Local Rule 16.3.
CONCLUSION
Having carefully considered the parties' briefs, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant's ex parte application for an order shortening time, and the companion motion to continue the briefing and hearing schedule for Traveler's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED [# 75, __]. The court continues plaintiff's motion for summary judgment from September 9, 2002 to December 2, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. [# 70]. Opposition and reply briefs shall be filed in compliance with Local Rule 7.1.
2. Discovery shall be completed by November 1, 2002.
IT IS SO ORDERED.