United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES, a Washington non-profit corporation; and SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES, a Washington non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs,
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, SYNDICATE 2623/623 BEAZLEY; and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
AND CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
to Local Civil Rule 16(b)(5)(ii), Plaintiffs Providence
Health and Services and Swedish Health Services
(“Providence”) and Defendants Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's London, Syndicate 2623/623
(Beazley) and Federal Insurance Company (collectively
“Insurers”) respectfully submit this second
Stipulated Motion to Modify the Case Schedule and Continue
the Trial Date. The case is currently set for trial on April
6, 2020, and has been previously continued once. The parties
seek a 70-day continuance to set a new trial date on or after
June 15, 2020.
an insurance coverage dispute arising from an underlying
action brought against Providence by Dr. David W. Newell,
alleging age discrimination, retaliation, and breach of
contract. The matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator
issued an award against Providence on August 18, 2017 in
excess of $17 million and subsequently awarded attorneys'
fees that raised the award above $18 million.
award was appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals,
Division I. In June 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
award. Newell v. Providence Health & Servs., 2019 WL
2578679 (Wash. App. June 24, 2019) (unpublished). The
Underlying Action has now concluded, with a satisfaction of
judgment entered in the trial court and a mandate issued by
the Court of Appeals.
purchased insurance policies from the Insurers. Providence
contends there is coverage for the underlying claims. The
Insurers contend that there is no coverage for the underlying
filed this action on March 1, 2018 in King County Superior
Court. Dkt. No. 1-2. The Insurers removed the case to this
Court on April 4, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. The parties submitted a
joint status report and discovery plan, in which they
proposed different methods to efficiently resolve this case.
Dkt. No. 31. Per the parties' suggestions, and the
Court's approval of a stipulated schedule, the parties
completed briefing of early cross-motions for summary
judgment on August 28, 2018. Dkt. No. 55.
the cross-motions were pending, the parties participated in
mediation, but they were unable to resolve the dispute. Dkt.
No. 56. Thereafter, in January 2019, the Court ruled on the
cross-motions, granted Providence's motion and denying
defendants' motions. Dkt. No. 61.
parties have engaged in written discovery and document
production, which has involved a substantial volume of
documents, including ESI. The parties issued expert reports
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on October 9, 2019. The current
deadline for rebuttal reports is November 8, 2019. Dkt. No.
the RFPs addressed to Providence seek documents generated by
Providence in the course of defending itself in the
underlying arbitration. In part due to the pending appeal,
Providence invoked the attorney-client privilege,
work-product doctrine, or both, as to a large portion of the
responsive documents. Through the meet-and-confer process,
the parties have reached agreement as to the production of
such documents, and Providence is in the process of preparing
them for production. This resolution was made possible in
large part by the final conclusion of the Underlying Action
(discussed above), which did not come until August 2019. The
parties are agreed that they will require additional time to
review the forthcoming substantial production of additional
documents. Further, the parties refrained from conducting
fact depositions until the privilege issues were resolved,
and accordingly no depositions yet have occurred. Finally,
although the parties have exchanged opening expert reports,
their experts too will need to review and consider the use of
the formerly withheld documents.
result of the foregoing events, the parties agree that,
although they have diligently pursued discovery in this case,
the remaining discovery cannot reasonably be completed before
the existing discovery cutoff of December 9. The parties
therefore join in seeking a modest continuance of the trial