44653943_1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O AIMEE KISSNER Plaintiff, v. TITEFLEX CORPORATION, AND DORMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-566-jdp TITEFLEX CORPORATION Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SCHULZ CONSTRUCTION, LLC, COMFORTAIRE HEATING AND COOLING, LLC, and RAY’S ELECTRIC SERVICE, LLC, Third-Party Defendants. TITEFLEX CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Titeflex Corporation (“Titeflex”) provides the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Titeflex’s Discovery Responses (“Second Motion to Compel”). Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on September 20, 2016 (“Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests”). Titeflex timely served its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests on October 24, 2016 (“Titeflex’s Discovery Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 1 of 3 44653943_1 -2- Responses”). After alleging Titeflex’s Discovery Responses were deficient, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Titeflex’s Discovery Responses (“Original Motion to Compel”). After the Parties’ January 5, 2017 Motion to Compel Hearing before this Court, your Honor issued an Order that same day requiring: (1) Titeflex and Co-Defendant Dormont Manufacturing Company (“Dormont”) to submit to Plaintiff a waiver concerning the Third-Party Defendants’ interests at the upcoming lab exam; (2) the Parties to submit to this Court their competing proposals concerning the disputed protective order; and (3) Titeflex to produce responsive documents and provide a privilege log for the documents it withheld from the production (“Order”). Titeflex complied with its obligations under this Court’s Order. Decl. of Andrew A. Bozant in Supp. of Titeflex’s Mot. for Extension of Time (“Bozant Decl.”), ¶ 3. However, Plaintiff alleged that Titeflex failed to meet its discovery obligations. Id. ¶ 4. After Titeflex explained to Plaintiff why the document production complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel Titeflex’s Discovery Responses on March 16, 2017 (“Second Motion to Compel”). Id. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, however, misstates this Court’s January 5, 2017 Order, and makes several inaccurate and misleading statements concerning Titeflex’s compliance with its discovery obligations. Id. ¶ 5. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel inappropriately incorporates issues raised in the original Motion to Compel, which Titeflex must also address. Id. In order to put a clear and accurate record before this Court, Titeflex respectfully requests a modest extension of seven (7) days to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel. The requested extension will also allow Titeflex additional time to brief this Court concerning the numerous issues the Second Motion to Compel raises, and to provide a detailed explanation concerning its document production. Id. ¶ 6. Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 2 of 3 44653943_1 -3- In light of the foregoing considerations, Titeflex respectfully requests this Court grant its Motion for a seven (7) day extension. Dated this 17th day of March, 2017. /s/ Steven M. DeVougas Patrick S. Nolan Steven M. DeVougas QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350 Milwaukee WI 53202-4426 (414) 277-5000 (414) 271-3552 (Fax) patrick.nolan@quarles.com steven.devougas@quarles.com Carl E. Switzer, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Andrew A. Bozant, Admitted Pro Hac Vice FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery St., 17th Floor San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 954-4413 (415) 954-4480 (Fax) cswitzer@fbm.com abozant@fbm.com Counsel for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Titeflex Corporation Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 3 of 3 44654058_1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O AIMEE KISSNER Plaintiff, v. TITEFLEX CORPORATION, AND DORMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-566-jdp TITEFLEX CORPORATION Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SCHULZ CONSTRUCTION, LLC, COMFORTAIRE HEATING AND COOLING, LLC, and RAY’S ELECTRIC SERVICE, LLC, Third-Party Defendants. DECLARATION OF ANDREW A. BOZANT IN SUPPORT OF TITEFLEX’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME I, Andrew A. Bozant, declare as follows: 1. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an associate with the law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Titeflex Corporation (“Titeflex”). 2. This Declaration is filed in support of Titeflex’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Titeflex’s Discovery Responses (“Second Motion to Compel”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and could and would competently testify thereto if called upon to do so. Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65-1 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 1 of 2 44654058_1 -2- 3. Titeflex fully complied with all aspects of this Court’s January 5, 2017 Order (“Order”) concerning Plaintiff’s original Motion to Compel Titeflex’s Discovery Responses (“Original Motion”). 4. After Titeflex produced its documents and privilege log, pursuant to this Court’s Order, Plaintiff alleged Titeflex’s document production failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After Titeflex informed Plaintiff it disagreed and explained its reasoning, Plaintiff filed its Second Motion to Compel on March 16, 2017. 5. After reviewing Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, Titeflex’s counsel immediately recognized several inaccurate and misleading statements within the Motion and its accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MPA”). Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel and MPA attempt to address Titeflex’s document production and improperly raise issues discussed in the Original Motion. 6. Titeflex’s counsel genuinely believes that extending its deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel by seven (7) days will allow it sufficient time to correct the record before this Court, address each issue Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel and MPA raise, and provide a detailed explanation as to why its document production is compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the State of Wisconsin that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 17, 2017, in San Francisco, California. _______________________ Andrew A. Bozant Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65-1 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 2 of 2 44654182_1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O AIMEE KISSNER Plaintiff, v. TITEFLEX CORPORATION, AND DORMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-566-jdp TITEFLEX CORPORATION Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SCHULZ CONSTRUCTION, LLC, COMFORTAIRE HEATING AND COOLING, LLC, and RAY’S ELECTRIC SERVICE, LLC, Third-Party Defendants. ORDER GRANTING TITEFLEX CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Titeflex Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Titeflex’s Discovery Responses (“Second Motion to Compel”) came before this Court on March 17, 2017. Having considered the papers filed, the arguments of counsel, and the full record in this action, and finding good cause, the Court hereby GRANTS Titeflex Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time. Titeflex’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel shall be filed no later than Thursday, March 30, 2017. Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65-2 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 1 of 2 44654182_1 -2- IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this ____ day of _________________, 2017. Honorable Stephen L. Crocker United States District Court Judge Case: 3:16-cv-00566-jdp Document #: 65-2 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 2 of 2
