Counsel

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest (“Homesite”) against two of its insureds, Omar Ewideh and Nivertiti Geaith. (Doc. 1). In this lawsuit Homesite seeks a determination of whether it has fully discharged its legal responsibilities under its homeowner insurance policy with the defendants. According to Homesite the insureds' home suffered water leak damage on two separate occasions, and experienced mold damage which was covered on Homesite's policy. Homesite alleges that it paid the defendants more than $294,000 as reimbursement on these claims pursuant to the terms of this homeowner policy. (Id., ¶¶ 1-56).

Notwithstanding these payments, Homesite alleges that the defendants have filed additional claims against its policy but has violated that policy by refusing to cooperate in the investigation of these additional claims; refusing to permit inspection of the property; failing to protect the property; and failing to properly document their claimed losses. (Id., ¶¶ 57-111). Homesite also asserts that the defendants have made false statements and concealed material facts from the plaintiff in the course of its investigation of these claims in violation of the homeowner policy. (Id., ¶¶ 112-24). Cast against the backdrop of these factual averments Homesite seeks a declaratory judgment that it has properly and adequately adjusted the defendants' claims under this homeowner insurance policy. (Id., ¶¶ 125-29).

The parties are embroiled in a contentious course of discovery, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendants have refused to comply with discovery demands or timely schedule depositions notwithstanding the entry of several orders directing them to do so. (Docs. 49, 57). The defendants, in turn, have submitted repeated requests to delay or stay the proceedings in this case. (Docs. 46, 54,55,58.)

Upon consideration of the parties' most recent submissions, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

First, the plaintiff's requests for production of documents having been reviewed by the court and deemed appropriate, the defendants shall respond in full to these requests on or before May 10, 2023 or show cause why they should not be precluded from submitting any documentary evidence as a sanction for their failure to produce discovery materials.

Second, the plaintiff's request for scheduling of depositions having been deemed appropriate, the defendants shall agree on or before May 10, 2023 to mutually convenient deposition dates in this case or show cause why they should not be precluded from presenting testimonial evidence due to their failure to comply with discovery demands.

The defendants' motion for the appointment of counsel to participate in these depositions is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal through a proper motion with a supporting brief.

The defendants' request for a stay is DENIED.

The practice of the litigants submitting various letters to the court having proven unhelpful and unwieldly, the parties are instructed that any future requests for relief from the court must be made by way of written motion with a supporting brief.

*2 So ordered this 2d day of May 2023.