McKenzie v. Truckee Tahoe Airport District
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/7/15 modifying the 6/20/14 Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order as follows: Expert Witness Disclosures due on 10/23/2015. Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosures due on 10/30/2015. All Discovery completed by 12/31/2015. All Dispositive Motions filed by 2/10/2016. Hearing on dispositive motions on 3/9/2016 at 9:30 a.m.. Joint pretrial statement due on or before 4/15/2016. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/22/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. Jury Trial (5-7 days) set for 6/6/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
REID, AXELROD
Donald S. Honigman, SB# 106914
315 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 451-3300
Fax:
(415) 451-3307
5
6
7
Attorneys for Defendant
TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT,
a public entity
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-00480-JAM-DAD
AUDREY McKENZIE,
Plaintiff,
14
JOINT REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION
OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
AND ORDER
vs.
15
16
TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT, a
public entity, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Hon. John A. Mendez, United States District
Judge
17
18
Defendants.
______________________________________/
19
COMES NOW the undersigned parties, by and through their respective undersigned
20
counsel of record, to respectfully request that the Court modify the deadlines in its June 20, 2014
21
Pre-trial Scheduling Order. The parties request that all dates, including the February 1, 2016,
22
Trial, be continued at least 120 days to allow adequate time for discovery.
23
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16(b)(4) provides that "a schedule may be
24
modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent". Good cause for the modification
25
exists here because despite the diligence of the parties the current schedule cannot reasonably be
26
met. More specifically, the parties are unable to complete all necessary discovery by the June
27
19, 2015 deadline for expert witness disclosures and the August 28, 2015, deadline for
28
completion of all discovery.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joint Request for Modification of Scheduling Order Deadlines and [Proposed] Order
-1-
1
To date, discovery has been delayed due to the inability of Defendant to obtain
2
Plaintiff’s extensive medical records from
Plaintiff’s out of state medical care providers,
3
including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System) in Reno,
4
Nevada. Defendant is informed that the Veteran’s Administration will not release Plaintiff’s
5
medical records without Plaintiff’s authorization. Thus, Defendant immediately requested that
6
Plaintiff provide the required signed Authorization.
7
The parties have met and conferred and Plaintiff has now agreed to immediately provide
8
Defendant with her signed Authorizations for the release of her medical records. In addition, in
9
order to facilitate the production of Plaintiff’s medical records, and address any of the medical
10
care providers HIPPAA concerns, the parties recently submitted a Proposed Protective Order to
11
the Court which the Court entered.
12
With an Authorization from Plaintiff, and a Protective Order in place, Defendant should
13
be able to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records from the Veteran’s Administration. However, based
14
upon past experience, the Veterans Administration is likely to be very slow in producing
15
Plaintiff’s medical records. Only upon receipt of Plaintiff’s medical records will the parties will
16
be able to proceed with their remaining required discovery, including plaintiff’s deposition and
17
expert discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel reports plaintiff is still treating. Additional good cause
18
exists to modify the scheduling order because, as discussed below, Plaintiff intends to request
19
leave of Court to name an additional Defendant.
20
A.
21
Plaintiff Audrey McKenzie alleges the following: Plaintiff was a spectator at an air show
22
at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. She was in the spectator area near where aircraft were on static
23
display. She took a step backward and fell over a block used to keep the planes in place that had
24
been left in the spectator area. She struck her head, suffered a concussion, post-concussion
25
syndrome, right temporal lobe damage. Her injuries forced her to drop out of the final semester
26
of her master's program and her treatment is continuing.
27
B.
Plaintiff Alleges Continuing Medical Treatment for her Alleged Injuries:
The Court’s June 20, 2014 Pre-trial Scheduling Order:
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joint Request for Modification of Scheduling Order Deadlines and [Proposed] Order
-2-
1
2
On June 20, 2014 the Court issued its STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER. After
review of the parties’ Joint Status Report, the Court scheduled the following:
3
June 19, 2015. Expert Witness Disclosures.
4
June 26, 2015. Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosures.
5
August 28, 2015. All Discovery completed.
6
October 7, 2015. All dispositive motions filed;
7
November 4, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on dispositive motions.
8
December 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Final Pre-Trial Conference
9
February 1, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. Jury Trial (5-7 days).
10
11
C.
The Parties Request Additional Time to Conduct Discovery:
12
Defendant TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT has made diligent efforts to
13
determine the nature, extent and cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. However, to
14
date, Defendant has been unable to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records from Plaintiff’s out of state
15
medical care providers, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA Sierra Nevada Health
16
Care System) in Reno, Nevada, without Plaintiff’s signed authorization.
17
The parties have met and conferred and Plaintiff has now agreed to immediately provide
18
Defendant with her signed Authorizations for the release of her medical records. In addition, in
19
order to facilitate the production of Plaintiff’s medical records, and address any of the medical
20
care provider’s HIPPAA concerns, the parties recently submitted a Proposed Protective Order to
21
the Court.
22
With an Authorization from Plaintiff, and a Protective Order in place, Defendant should
23
be able to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records from the Veteran’s Administration. However, based
24
upon past experience, the Veterans Administration is likely to be very slow in producing
25
Plaintiff’s medical records. Only upon receipt of Plaintiff’s medical records will the parties will
26
be able to proceed with their remaining required discovery, including the deposition of Plaintiff
27
Audrey McKenzie, as well as the depositions of Plaintiff’s fiancé and son who were allegedly
28
present at the time of the incident, and expert discovery.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joint Request for Modification of Scheduling Order Deadlines and [Proposed] Order
-3-
1
Plaintiff’s counsel represents that Plaintiff is continuing to receive medical treatment for
2
her alleged injuries.
Thus, no party will be prejudiced by a modification of the pretrial
3
scheduling order. In fact, greater time is needed to allow the parties to properly assess Plaintiff’s
4
alleged damages, her current medical condition, and her prognosis.
5
6
D.
Plaintiff Requests Additional Time to Investigate a Potential Defendant:
7
Plaintiff is currently considering whether to seek leave of Court to amend the First
8
Amended Complaint to name the Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1073 as a
9
Defendant. Plaintiff believes that the Experimental Aircraft Association may have been involved
10
in the incident. Modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order would provide Plaintiff with
11
additional time to investigate the involvement, if any, of the Experimental Aircraft Association.
12
This would enable Plaintiff to determine whether or not the Association should be named as a
13
defendant in this action.
14
15
E.
16
Based on the above, the parties respectfully request that the Court modify the deadlines in
17
its June 20, 2014 Pre-trial Scheduling Order. The parties request that all dates, including the
18
February 1, 2016, Trial, be continued at least 120 days to allow adequate time for discovery.
Conclusion:
19
20
21
DATED: April 7, 2015
CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK,
FRANCAVILLA, BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
22
23
/s/ Scott C. Cummins
24
25
DATED: April 7, 2015
REID, AXELROD
26
27
/s/ Donald S. Honigman
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joint Request for Modification of Scheduling Order Deadlines and [Proposed] Order
-4-
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
2
3
4
For good cause the Court’s June 20, 2014 STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER is
modified as follows:
5
6
Expert Witness Disclosures on 10/23/2015.
7
8
Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosures on 10/30/2015.
9
10
All Discovery completed by 12/31/2015.
11
12
All dispositive motions filed by 2/10/2016.
13
14
Hearing on dispositive motions on 3/9/2016 at 9:30 a.m.
15
16
Joint pretrial statement due on or before 4/15/2016.
17
18
Final Pre-Trial Conference on 4/22/2016 at 11:00 a.m.
19
20
Jury Trial (5-7 days) on 6/6/2016 at 9:00 a.m.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated: 4/7/2015
/s/ John A. Mendez______________
United States District Court Judge
25
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joint Request for Modification of Scheduling Order Deadlines and [Proposed] Order
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?