Varfolomeeva v. United States of America

Filing 7

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/24/2017 MODIFYING the Pretrial Scheduling Order; ORDERING all parties to serve initial disclosures by 6/26/2017; ORDERING that fact discovery be completed by 12/18/2017; ORD ERING the plaintiff to disclose expert witnesses by 1/29/2018; ORDERING the defendant to disclose expert witnesses by 3/26/2018; ORDERING all parties to disclose supplemental experts by 5/28/2018; ORDERING that expert discovery be completed by 7/30/2018; ORDERING that all dispositive motions be filed by 9/17/2018. (Michel, G.)

1 KIRILL B. TARASENKO
State Bar No. 283986
2 TARASENKO LAW OFFICE
845 University Ave.
3 Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone:
888-878-0830
4 Facsimile:
916-848-3323
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
ALINA VARFOLOMEEVA
6
7 PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
8 JOSEPH B. FRUEH
Assistant United States Attorneys
9 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
10 E-mail:
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
11 Facsimile: [phone]
12 Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
13
14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

ALINA VARFOLOMEEVA,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00599-MCE-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER MODIFYING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Rule 240(b), and the Court’s Initial

3 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3), the parties have met and conferred regarding the nature and
4 basis of their claims and defenses; the possibility of promptly settling or resolving this case; the
5 disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); preserving discoverable information; and developing a proposed
6 discovery plan. Having so met and conferred,
7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties and subject to Court approval, that

8 the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order be modified as set forth below:
9

Deadline to serve initial disclosures ................................................... June 26, 2017

10

Deadline to complete fact discovery ......................................... December 18, 2017

11

Deadline for Plaintiff’s initial expert disclosures .......................... January 29, 2018

12

Deadline for Defendant’s initial expert disclosures ........................ March 26, 2018

13

Deadline for supplemental (i.e., rebuttal) expert disclosures ............. May 28, 2018

14

Deadline to complete expert discovery ............................................... July 30, 2018

15

Deadline for filing dispositive motions ..................................... September 17, 2018

16

The parties believe most of the discovery in this case will concern the disclosure and

17 examination of opinions held by medical and other expert witnesses. Accordingly, the parties propose
18 modifying the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order to allocate more time to expert discovery than fact
19 discovery. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3), the parties provide the
20 following additional information for the Court’s consideration.
21 I.

Brief Case Summary

22

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian. On November 19, 2014,

23 Plaintiff Alina Varfolomeeva alleges she was in a crosswalk at the intersection of J Street and Fifth
24 Street in Sacramento, California, when a vehicle operated by a federal employee struck her in violation
25 of California Vehicle Code section 21950(a). Plaintiff further alleges that the collision caused her
26 personal injuries and other economic and noneconomic damages. Plaintiff maintains this action against
27 the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80,
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

1

1 which provides the exclusive remedy for personal injuries arising from the alleged negligent acts or
2 omissions of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Id. § 2679(b)(1).
3 II.

Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3)

4

A.

5

The parties will serve initial disclosures no later than June 26, 2017. The parties propose that

Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a)

6 Plaintiff shall serve her initial expert disclosures no later than January 29, 2018, and Defendant shall
7 serve its initial expert disclosures no later than March 26, 2018. The parties propose that any
8 supplemental (i.e., rebuttal) expert disclosures be served no later than May 28, 2018.
9
10

B.

Subjects and Timing of Discovery

The parties believe the subjects of discovery will include the nature, location, and timing of

11 Plaintiff’s actions and those of the alleged tortfeasor on November 19, 2014, and the nature and extent
12 of the personal injuries and other economic and noneconomic damages that Plaintiff alleges resulted
13 from the incident. The parties propose that discovery occur in two phases—fact discovery and expert
14 discovery—as outlined above. The parties propose a deadline of December 18, 2017, to complete fact
15 discovery, and a deadline of July 30, 2018, to complete expert discovery.
16

C.

17

The parties do not anticipate discovery of electronically stored information.

18

D.

19

The parties hereby agree that the scope of discovery shall not include documents prepared by

Electronically Stored Information

Protection of Privileges or Trial-Preparation Materials

20 counsel on or after November 19, 2014, or confidential attorney-client communications occurring on or
21 after November 19, 2014, and that such documents or information shall be deemed non-responsive and
22 may be withheld without the need to assert or interpose an objection or seek a protective order, except as
23 provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) for certain communications with or documents
24 provided to testifying experts. The parties further agree that privilege logs need not be produced unless
25 and until requested by counsel in connection with specific objections that have been asserted.
26

E.

27

The parties do not propose any changes in the limitations imposed on discovery by the Federal

Changes in Discovery Limitations

28 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

2

1

F.

2

The parties do not propose any other orders concerning discovery.

Other Orders Concerning Discovery

3 Dated: May 15, 2017
4

TARASENKO LAW OFFICE
By:

5

/s/ Kirill B. Tarasenko
(authorized on 5/15/2017)
KIRILL B. TARASENKO, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALINA VARFOLOMEEVA

6
7
8 Dated: May 22, 2017

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney

9
By:

10
11

/s/ Joseph B. Frueh
JOSEPH B. FRUEH
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: May 24, 2017
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

3