Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 1 of 6

1

2

3
4

ROBERT K. SCOTT # 67466 D. SCOTT MOHNEY #124426 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT K. SCOTT 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 605 Irvine CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 753 4950 FacsImile: (949) 753 4949 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURIE ORANGE WARREN H. NELSON JR. # 104744 A PROFESSIONAL CdRP ORA TION 6161 EI Cajon Boulevard, # 273 San Diego, CA 92115 Telephone: (619) 2694212 FacsImile: (619) 501 7948 Email: [email protected]
Attorn~ for

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

12 13 14 15 16 17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 3:08-cv-00686 BTM-CAB JOINT RULE 26(t) REPORT

LAURIE ORANGE, Plaintiff, vs.

19
20

21
22

STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

23
24

25
26
27

28

JOINT RULE 26(f} REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB - 1

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 2 of 6

1

The parties, plaintiff Laurie Orange ("Orange") and defendant Standard Insurance Company ("Standard"), jointly and respectfully submit the following Report on their Rule 26(f) meeting in this case.

2
3

4

5

1. The nature and basis of the claims and defenses. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 26(f)(2): Orange was a Deputy County Counsel for the County of San Diego. She made a claim of disability to Standard that was accepted and then closed. Orange alleges that Standard improperly applied a Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorder Limitation (the "Limitation") contained in the policy at issue to close her claim for long-term disability insurance benefits. Standard's position is that the Limitation was properly applied. Orange further asserts that Standard handled her claim unreasonably so as to render Standard liable to her for compensatory tort damages. Further, she alleges that Standard handled her claim with malice, fraud, oppression or in conscious disregard of her rights, so that Standard is liable to her for punitive damages. Standard denies these allegations and specifically denies that it committed "bad faith" at all or any misconduct at all, much less that approaching the level required to support a claim for punitive damages. Standard asserts that there is a genuine dispute of law and/or fact as to its contractual liability, so that Standard is not liable for unreasonable ("bad faith") claims handling and cannot thereby be liable to Orange for punitive damages.

6
7

8
9

10
11 12 13 14 15

16
17

18
19

20
21

22

23
24

2. Possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 26(t)(2): There have been only very preliminary settlement discussions. It is anticipated that Orange will make a demand for settlement and that the Court will then discuss settlement with the parties at the MSC set for July 23, 2008, betore Magistrate Judge Bencivengo. As agreed, Standard's settlement representative

25

26
27

28

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB - 2

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 3 of 6

1
2

will not personally attend but will be on telephone stand-by at all times during the planned MSC. 3. Making or arranging for Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a). Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 26(0(2): The parties jointly request that the court order completion of Initial
Disclosures on or before August 22,2008.
4. Issues with regard to preservation of discoverable information. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 26(£)(2):
None have currently been identified.
5. Discovery Plan. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 26(£)(3): (A) Changes proposed in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made. No changes are proposed in the timing form or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a). The parties jointly request that the court order completion of Initial Disclosures on or before August 22,2008. (B) The subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues. The parties jointly note that this case is in its very earliest stages, and additional issues, evidence and witnesses may well be discovered. Subject to the foregoing, Orange will take the depositions of Standard's claims handling personnel, including medical and vocational consultants, and

3
4

5
6 7

8
9

10
11
12

13
14

15

16
17
18 19

20
21 22

23
24

25

26
27

28

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB - 3

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 4 of 6

1
2

reserves the right to depose other individuals, including expert witnessses, that may be identified in Initial Disclosures or discovery generally. Subject to the foregoing first sentence of this paragraph, Standard will take the deposition of Orange, family members who will support her claim at trial, her last two employers, her physicians and reserves the right to depose other individuals, including expert witnesses, that may be identified in Initial Disclosures or discovery generally. Each party will serve sets of interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission. (C) Any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which is should be produced. None have currently been identified. (D) Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial preparation materials, including--ifthe parties agree on a procedure to assert these claim after production-whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order. None have currently been identified. (E) What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed. None have currently been identified. (F) Any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).

3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10

11
12

13
14

15
16 17 18 19

20
21 22

23
24

25

26
27

28

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB - 4

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 5 of 6

1

None have currently been identified.

2

3

4


In case the Court wishes to solicit the parties' views on case scheduling
generally, the parties include the following discussion:

5
6
7
8
9


Orange proposes the following case deadline dates:
Discovery Cut Off: January 15, 2009
Expert and Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: As per Rule 26.
Pretrial Conference: May 2009
Trial: anticipated length 5-7 court days


10
11


12


Standard proposes the following case deadline dates:
Discovery Cut Off: April 15,2009
Expert and Rebuttal Expert Disclosure:
· · · · Orange: January 15,2009 Standard: February 13,2009 Orange Rebuttal Reports: February 27,2009 Standard Rebuttal Reports: March 13,2009


13

14


15

16

17


18
19

20 21


Pretrial Conference: May 2009
Trial: June 2009, anticipated length, five court days
Dated: July /L, 2008

'-.,! /

22

23


WARREN . NELSON JR. A PROFESSIONAL CdRPORATION 6161 EI Cajon Boulevard, # 273
San Diego, CA 92115

Attom~ for Defendant
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

24
25
26

27


28


JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB - 5

Case 3:08-cv-00686-BTM-CAB

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 6 of 6

1

Dated: July /(1: 2008

2
3
4

5
6
7

DAVID SCOTT MOHNEY LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT K. SCOTT 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 605 Irvine, CA 92618 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURIE ORANGE

8
9

10
11

12

13

14
15
16
17

18 19 20
21

22 23

24
25 26

27 28

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT - 3:08-CV-00686 BTM-CAB -

6