Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 6, 2017

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN United States Magistrate Judge

         On April 6, 2017, these cases were before the undersigned to address Lennar Mare Island, LLC's (“Lennar”) motion to compel Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) to produce un-redacted copies of certain reinsurance documents. (ECF No. 477 in 2:12-cv-2182; ECF No. 107 in 2:16-cv-0291.)[1] Also before the court was Steadfast's motion to compel Lennar to provide further responses to Steadfast's Interrogatory Numbers 11 through 22. (ECF No. 478 in 2:12-cv-2182; ECF No. 108 in 2:16-cv-0291.)[2] The court and the parties also addressed whether any issues remained with regard to the parties' previous discovery dispute regarding the depositions of John Hatch and Steve Mahoney. Attorney Morgan Tovey appeared on behalf of Steadfast.[3]Attorney John Purcell appeared telephonically also on behalf of Steadfast. Attorneys Alan Packer and Ryan Werner appeared telephonically on behalf of Lennar. Attorneys Johnathan Jacobson and Mitchell Zeff appeared telephonically on behalf of intervenor plaintiff United States. Attorney Amanda Hairston appeared telephonically on behalf of counterclaimant/counter defendant CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc.

         Based on Steadfast's and Lennar's motions and the parties' joint statements regarding these discovery disputes, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Lennar's motion to compel (ECF No. 477 in 2:12-cv-2182; ECF No. 107 in 2:16-cv-0291) is GRANTED.[4] As the court noted during the hearing, Steadfast does not need to actually produce un-redacted copies of the reinsurance documents Lennar seeks through its motion because Lennar already has un-redacted copies of such documents as a result of the third-party insurers' productions in response to the subpoenas Lennar served on those third parties.[5]
2. Steadfast's motion to compel (ECF No. 478 in 2:12-cv-2182; ECF No. 108 in 2:16-cv-0291) is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART:
a. Steadfast's motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to compel Lennar to provide a further, substantive response to Interrogatory Number 11, but only insofar as that request seeks Lennar's contention in Paragraph 27 of the first amended complaint it filed in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291 that the tendered claim it refers to in subpart (s) of Paragraph 24 of that same pleading “[is] covered under the terms of the ELI Policy.”[6] Lennar shall provide its full, substantive response to this narrowed interrogatory request within 14 days of the date of this order.[7]
b. Steadfast's motion is DENIED in all other respects.
3. This order resolves the motions to compel filed at ECF Nos. 477 and 478 in Case No. 12-cv-2182, and ECF Nos. 107 and 108 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The motions filed in each action are identical.

[2] The motions filed in each action are identical.

[3] After the hearing, the parties requested the court to schedule an informal telephonic discovery conference to address their remaining issues relating to these depositions. The requested telephonic ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.