U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Handy Industries, Inc.

15 F.3d 1095 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANDY INDUSTRIES, INC., Barry Handy, Defendant-Appellant, and Huber Farms, Inc., Robert P. Huber; Guy F. Huber; Leland Hintz; Jerry Schillinger; Kenneth Schillinger; Anken, Inc.; K. & A. Farms, Inc., Defendants. No. 92-35364. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 5, 1993. * Decided Jan. 19, 1994. Before TANG, FARRIS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Barry Handy and Handy Industries, Inc. (collectively "Handy") appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (c)(3), the magistrate judge's denial of their request for a continuance. Handy requested a continuance so that he could depose his local insurance agent who had remarked the previous month that Handy would win the case and that the United States Guaranty & Fidelity Company ("USF & G") would be required to defend Handy and cover any losses. Handy thought…