Panattoni Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Filing
48
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS granting pltf's 24 Motion for Leave to call an expert and admit his expert report by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
PANATTONI CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California corporation,
CASE NO. C11-1195RSM
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
v.
12
13
14
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
corporation,
15
Defendant.
16
This matter is before the Court for consideration of two motions filed by plaintiff Panattoni
17
Construction, Inc. (“Panattoni”), a motion to compel production of documents (Dkt. # 12) and a motion
18
for leave to call an expert and admit his expert report (Dkt. # 24). Plaintiff has requested oral argument
19
on both motions, but the Court deems that unnecessary. Having considered the motions, defendant’s
20
opposition, plaintiff’s replies, and the balance of the record, the Court now finds and rules as follows:
21
(1) Motion to Compel
22
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company
23
(“Travelers”) to produce unredacted copies of documents in the claims file in this case. Plaintiff has
24
asserted a claim of insurance bad faith against Travelers, and contends that the claims file is relevant to
25
determination of that claim. The file that was produced consists of 180 pages, nearly all of which are
26
blank (redacted), apart from the address and subject line portions of the emails. Declaration of Eileen
27
McKillop, Dkt. # 14, Exhibit 4. Defendant asserts that all the redacted portions are protected by
28
ORDER - 1
1
2
attorney-client and/or work product privilege. Defendant’s Opposition, Dkt. # 16.
The Court has determined that in camera review of the documents is necessary to resolve this
3
dispute. Defendant shall accordingly submit an unredacted copy of the requested documents in a sealed
4
envelope for review. The envelope shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office, marked “RSM Chambers,”
5
within one week of the date of this Order.
6
(2) Motion for Leave to Call Expert
7
Plaintiff has moved for leave to call James Schratz as an expert on claims handling procedures,
8
and submit his report, after the deadline for submission of such reports. Dkt. # 24. Plaintiff contends
9
that it did not feel expert testimony on claims handling was necessary until it received the fully-redacted
10
claims file, addressed above. Defendant has opposed the motion, noting that the deadline for expert
11
reports was July 26, 2012, and asserting that plaintiff took no discovery until after that date. Thus,
12
according to defendant, plaintiff alone is responsible for the problem and the deadline should not be
13
extended.
14
The Court finds that plaintiff has shown that an extension of the deadline is substantially justified,
15
and will facilitate a resolution of this case on the merits. Defendant will not be prejudiced, as it has been
16
aware of this proposed expert since late August, and has had his report in hand since September 21, 2012.
17
Declaration of Eileen McKillop, Dkt. # 25, Exhibit 10. Trial is not until January 22, 2013, so defendant
18
has time to obtain a rebuttal report. The Court will re-open discovery for the limited purpose of taking
19
the deposition of Mr. Schratz.
20
21
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the deadline for expert disclosure and reports
is GRANTED. The report of plaintiff’s expert James Schratz shall be deemed admissible.
22
23
DATED: November 8, 2012.
A
24
25
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
ORDER - 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
