Allstate Indemnity Company v. Trane
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-10751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Allstate Insurance v. Trane, Judge Cronan denied the parties’ request to stay discovery while they pursued mediation.
Allstate Insurance Company, Trane, and Hayes Fluid Control, whose discovery was required to continue while they pursued mediation.
What happened
Allstate Insurance Company, acting for Edward Menicheschi, sued Trane and Hayes Fluid Control. The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery while they pursued mediation.
The parties said discovery had already been extended several times because of COVID-19-related delays, an expert’s surgery, and difficulties obtaining and testing evidence held by a nonparty. They requested a 90-day stay to avoid further discovery expenses if mediation resolved the case.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the request. He ordered discovery to continue while mediation efforts proceeded, although the parties could request another extension if they could not finish discovery by April 1, 2021; the court said such an extension was unlikely without very good cause.
The detailed version
- Allstate Indemnity Company v. Trane · No. 1:19-cv-10751
- John Cronan
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Allstate Insurance Company, acting as subrogee of Edward Menicheschi, sued Trane and Hayes Fluid Control. The parties jointly filed a letter-motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the court’s individual practice rules seeking a stay of discovery while they participated in mediation.
The parties had exchanged initial discovery, inspected the premises, and taken depositions of three adjusters from Allstate’s insurance company and the unit owner. They said additional work remained, including destructive testing of evidence connected to the water-heater unit. The testing had been rescheduled three times because of COVID-19 quarantine orders, and a hose and valve needed for the examination were in the custody and control of Arti Goga of The Beekman Regent Condominium, a nonparty.
The discovery deadline had been extended several times, from May 15, 2020, to February 8, 2021, and then to April 1, 2021. The parties said mediation might resolve the case and avoid the expense of further fact and expert discovery, destructive testing, and additional depositions. They requested a 90-day stay, and the opinion states that all parties consented.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan denied the request to stay discovery. The court directed that discovery proceed while the parties attempted to resolve the case through mediation. The court stated that the parties could request another extension if they were unable to complete discovery by April 1, 2021, but that it was unlikely to grant one without very good cause.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery-related case-management ruling. It did not decide the underlying claims or defenses. The mediation could continue, but discovery was not paused by the court’s order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.