Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
0:15-cv-62683 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Esurance Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Florida
Date Filed: 
Dec 22 2015

NON-PARTY BERNSTEIN CHACKMAN LISS' MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO SUBPOENA
ISSUED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss, by and through undersigned counsel and

pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this its Motion for

Extension of Time to Respond to a Subpoena issued in the Northern District of California,

and in support thereof states as follows:

  1. , Non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss was recently served with a Subpoena
    to Produce Documents Information or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil
    Action in the matter of Esurance Insurance Company v. Westchester Fire Insurance
    Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, and William Gallagher Associates Insurance
    Brokers, Inc., that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court in and for the California
    Northern District (San Francisco) under case number 3:15-cv-00862-RS. A copy of the
    subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
  2. The subpoena commands a representative of non-party Bernstein Chackman
    Liss to appear and produce the requested documentation on or about December 18,2015.

The specified location for the production is in Hollywood, Florida, located within the
Southern District of Florida.

  1. Due to the law firm’s trial schedule and the storage and volume of the
    requested materials, non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss requested an extension of time
    through December 23, 2015 to respond to the subpoena. Counsel for Westchester Fire
    Insurance Company agreed to this extension via e-mail.
  2. After further review of the subpoena and requested materials, non-party
    Bernstein Chackman Liss determined that the subpoena imposed a significant burden on
    the non-party to produce the materials within a short period of time. Non-party
    subsequently requested a thirty-day extension to respond to the subpoena due to these
    issues. Counsel for Westchester Fire Insurance Company did not respond to this request.
  3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d), non-party Bernstein
    Chackman Liss is required to file a motion to modify the subpoena in the court for the
    district where compliance is required. Westchester Fire Insurance Company has requested
    that Bernstein Chackman Liss comply with the subpoena in the Southern District of Florida.
    This motion is timely in that it has been filed on or before the deadline to comply with the
    subpoena.
  4. Non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss hereby requests an extension of thirty
    days from December 23, 2015 (to January 25, 2015) to produce documents and/or file
    objections to the subpoena. This extension will permit non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss
    to determine whether any privileges apply that would require the non-party to withhold the
    requested materials.
  1. It is the position of the non-party Bernstein Chackman Liss that the subpoena
    could potentially be quashed underFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 45(d)(3) forfailure
    to allow the non-party a reasonable time to comply and/or for requiring the disclosure of
    privileged and/or other protected matter. See Quillet v. Usha Jain, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
    65542 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2014). Therefore, the deadline for the non-party to respond to
    the subpoena should be modified to permit sufficient time for compliance.
  2. This motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay.
  3. The undersigned counsel has communicated with counsel for Westchester
    Fire Insurance Company, who issued the subpoena, regarding the requested extension.
    Counsel for Westchester Fire Insurance Company did not respond this request within a
    timely manner.
  4. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), counsel for the movant, non-party
    Bernstein Chackman Liss, certifies that he has conferred with all parties or non-parties who
    may be affected by the relief sought in this motion in a good faith effort to resolve the
    issues but has been unable to resolve the issues.

WHEREFORE, Non-party BERNSTEIN CHACKMAN LISS respectfully requests that
its present motion be granted and that any responses, objections, and/or appearances to
the subpoena be due in thirty days, by January 25, 2016.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.