Gonzalez v. Veterans Administration et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/29/2018 ORDERING Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure due by 3/22/2018; Defendant's Expert Disclosure by 5/3/2018; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures by 5/17/2018; Discovery due by 6/14/2018; a nd Dispositive Motions filed by 8/3/2018; the 6/28/2018, Final Pretrial Conference and 8/13/2018, Bench Trial are VACATED; the parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than 30 days after receiving this Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion. (Reader, L)

1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
2 GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Attorneys for the United States
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 DANIEL E. GONZALEZ,
11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:15-cv-1997-MCE-DB-PS
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

12 vs.
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
14

Defendants.

15
16

Pursuant to Local Rule 143, Plaintiff and the United States stipulate, and propose, that the Court

17 extend the pretrial schedule by approximately 90 days, as further set forth below. Plaintiff, who is
18 proceeding pro se, has had numerous medical and other issues that have made it difficult to conduct
19 discovery and prepare expert reports, the time for which has now past. In addition, the parties have had
20 technical difficulties in exchanging and accessing one another’s electronic documents, which has
21 compounded the problems. Despite these problems, Plaintiff has diligently attempted to resolve them
22 and to resolve the matter, but the parties have been unable to do so. For example, Plaintiff scheduled an
23 in-person meeting with opposing counsel, and secured agreement to the concept of an extension before
24 Plaintiff’s deadline ran, and Plaintiff filed a request with the Court for an extension on the day his expert
25 disclosures were due. The parties have worked out an agreed-schedule, which is set forth below.
26

Failure to grant this extension may well be fatal to Plaintiff’s case, which would be inequitable

27 considering his diligence and pro se status, and the fact that the problems described above were beyond
28 the control of either party. Thus, there appears good cause for an order extending all pretrial dates by

1 approximately three months, to avoid a draconian result that is independent of any fault and independent
2 of the merits. In addition, the parties propose moving the pretrial conference and the trial date
3 approximately four months to permit more time for the Court to review and decide any dispositive
4 motion, and to account for the 2018 holidays implicated by the stipulation and proposed order.
Plaintiff proposed this stipulation during a December 15, 2017, in-person meet and confer and

5

6 the United States agreed. However, the stipulation is submitted at this time due to illness and the
7 intervening, year-end holidays which made scheduling difficult.
Therefore, the parties stipulate and propose that the pretrial schedule, adopting by this Court in

8

9 June 2017 (Dkt. No. 37) an October 2017 (Dkt. No. 43), be continued as follows:
10
11

Event

12

Current Date

Proposed Date

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure

December 22, 2017

March 22, 2018

Defendant’s Expert Disclosure

January 19, 2018

May 3, 2018

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

February 2, 2018.

May 17, 2018

16

Discovery Completed

March 2, 2018

June 14, 2018

17

Law and Motion (except to compel discovery)

April 20, 2018

August 3, 2018

18

Plaintiff’s Pretrial Conference Statement,
Trial Brief, and Motions in Limine1

May 31, 2018

September 13, 2018

20

United States’ Pretrial Conference Statement,
Trial Brief, and Motions in Limine

May 31, 2018

September 20, 2018

21

Oppositions to Motions in Limine

June 14, 2018

October 4, 2018

22

Replies Regarding Motions in Limine

June 21, 2018

October 11, 2018

Final Pretrial Conference

June 28, 2018

October 18, 2018;
2:00 p.m.

Trial (5 days)

August 13, 2018

December 3, 2018;
9:00 a.m.

13
14
15

19

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The original order contemplates a joint pretrial conference statement. Given the nature of this medical
malpractice case and the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, it appears separate
statements will be more efficient for the Court and the parties.
STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND PRETRIAL DATES

2

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2402, “any action against the United States . . . shall be tried by the court
2 without a jury.”
3

The above-stipulated schedule was carefully worked through in light of Plaintiff’s condition and

4 the United States’ counsel’s 2018 trial schedule. Should the Court be inclined to alter the dates in the
5 above-proposed schedule, the parties request that the Court convene a status conference or otherwise
6 permit the parties an opportunity to communicate their limitations to the Court.
7 Respectfully Submitted
8 Dated: January 19, 2018

McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney

9

/s/ Gregory T. Broderick
GREGORY T. BRODERICK

10
11

/s/ Daniel Gonzalez (authorized 01/19/2018)
DANIEL GONZALEZ
Plaintiff in Pro Per

12
13

ORDER

14
15
16
17

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, the dates set forth in the
Court’s previous Status Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 37) and Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling
Order (Dkt. No. 43) are amended such that the following schedule shall apply:

18
19
20

Event

Proposed Date

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure

March 22, 2018

Defendant’s Expert Disclosure

May 3, 2018

23

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

May 17, 2018

24

Discovery Completed

June 14, 2018

Law and Motion (except to compel discovery)

August 3, 2018

21
22

25
26
27
28

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND PRETRIAL DATES

3

1

The June 28, 2018 Final Pretrial Conference and August 13, 2018 Bench Trial are vacated. The

2 parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after receiving
3 this Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion. The parties are to set forth in their Notice of Trial
4 Readiness, the appropriateness of special procedures, whether this case is related to any other case(s) on
5 file in the Eastern District of California, the prospect for settlement, their estimated trial length, any
6 request for a jury, and their availability for trial. After review of the parties' Joint Notice of Trial
7 Readiness, the Court will issue an order that sets forth new dates for a final pretrial conference and trial.
8

All other provisions in the Status Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 37) and Supplemental

9 Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 43) shall remain in effect.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: January 29, 2018
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND PRETRIAL DATES

4