Nationwide Insurance Company v. United Specialty Insurance Company
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-03904
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nationwide v. United Specialty, Judge Koeltl granted the parties’ application to stay their Rule 26(f) report until ruling on an early summary-judgment issue.
The parties—Nationwide Insurance Company, 59 South 4", LLC, and United Specialty Insurance Company—were affected by the stay of the Rule 26(f) report deadline.
What happened
Nationwide Insurance Company and 59 South 4", LLC sued United Specialty Insurance Company in a declaratory judgment action. The parties were discussing whether the plaintiffs could seek summary judgment before any discovery occurred.
The court had ordered the parties to submit a report about their required planning conference under Rule 26(f). The parties asked to pause that deadline while the court considered whether the plaintiffs could file their proposed summary-judgment motion without discovery.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application to stay the filing of the joint Rule 26(f) report. The text provided does not state a ruling on the proposed summary-judgment motion or the underlying insurance dispute.
The detailed version
- Nationwide Insurance Company v. United Specialty Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-03904
- John Koeltl
- May 27, 2021
Background
Nationwide Insurance Company and 59 South 4", LLC brought a declaratory judgment action against United Specialty Insurance Company. The plaintiffs had proposed filing a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed.
The parties had exchanged letters about the proposed motion and had a conference scheduled for June 1, 2021. The court also had directed them to submit a joint report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That rule generally requires parties to discuss case management and discovery and report their plan to the court.
Application and ruling
The parties jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, the deadline for filing the Rule 26(f) report while the court considered whether the plaintiffs could file their summary-judgment motion before any discovery occurred.
The application was granted. The order therefore paused the filing of the joint Rule 26(f) report. The provided text does not show that the court decided whether the plaintiffs could file summary judgment without discovery, and it does not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.