S.A.A.S. v. USA, et al.,

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/2/2019 ORDERING: Service of Initial Disclosures due by 12/7/2018, Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 11/15/2019, Rebuttal of Expert Disclosures due by 1/24/2020, Discovery to be completed by 3/27/2020, and Dispositive Motions to be filed by 4/24/2020. (Huang, H)

1 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
A Professional Corporation
2 DOUGLAS S. SAELTZER (State Bar #173088)
[e-mail]
3 CHRISTIAN R. JAGUSCH (State Bar #306753)
[e-mail]
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5 S.A.A.S.
6 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
7 JOSEPH B. FRUEH
Assistant United States Attorney
8 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
9 E-mail:
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
11 Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
12
13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

S.A.A.S.,

Case No. 2:18-cv-01566-MCE-DB

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY 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 ............................................ December 7, 2018

10

Deadline for initial expert disclosures ....................................... November 15, 2019

11

Deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures ........................................ January 24, 2020

12

Deadline to complete discovery ....................................................... March 27, 2020

13

Deadline for filing dispositive motions.............................................. April 24, 2020

14

The parties anticipate that most of the discovery in this case will occur in the related state court

15 action S.A.A.S. v. Dignity Health, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-1816 465288. The trial in the state court action is currently set to begin on September 23, 2019. Plaintiff’s
17 counsel agrees to serve Defendant’s counsel with all discovery that Plaintiff receives or serves in the
18 state court proceeding. The parties agree that depositions taken in the state court action will count
19 toward the one-deposition limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1).
20

After the state court action is tried or otherwise resolved, the parties anticipate some additional

21 expert discovery specific to the instant federal proceeding. The parties agree that initial expert
22 disclosures shall be served on November 15, 2019, and rebuttal expert disclosures shall be served on
23 January 24, 2020. Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 24, 2020. In the event that
24 no party intends to file a dispositive motion, the parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness no
25 later than 30 days after the close of discovery.
26

In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3), the parties provide the following

27 additional information for the Court’s consideration.
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER

1

1 I.

Brief Case Summary

2

Plaintiff S.A.A.S. asserts one claim for wrongful death (medical malpractice) against the United

3 States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80. She alleges
4 that health care providers at Community Medical Center (“CMC”), a federally funded clinic in Stockton,
5 California, negligently failed to diagnose her mother with diabetic ketoacidosis on February 6, 2016, and
6 that this failure resulted in her mother’s death on February 11, 2016.
7 II.

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

8

A.

9

The parties will serve initial disclosures no later than December 7, 2018. The parties will serve

Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a)

10 initial expert disclosures no later than November 15, 2019. The parties propose that any rebuttal expert
11 disclosures shall be served no later than January 24, 2020.
12

B.

Subjects and Timing of Discovery

13

The parties anticipate that the subjects of discovery will include the facts and circumstances of

14 the medical care S.A.A.S.’s mother received from health care providers at St. Joseph’s Medical Center
15 and CMC from February 4 to 11, 2016; the applicable standards of professional care; the nature and
16 extent of any wrongful-death damages sustained by S.A.A.S; and the causal connection between any
17 damages sustained by S.A.A.S. and any breach of the applicable standards of professional care. The
18 parties propose a deadline of March 27, 2019, to complete discovery.
19

C.

Electronically Stored Information

20

The parties do not anticipate discovery of electronically stored information.

21

D.

22

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

Protection of Privileges or Trial-Preparation Materials

23 counsel on or after of May 29, 2018, or confidential attorney-client communications occurring on or
24 after May 29, 2018, and that such documents or information shall be deemed non-responsive and may be
25 withheld without the need to assert or interpose an objection or seek a protective order, except as
26 provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) for certain communications with or documents
27 provided to testifying experts. The parties further agree that privilege logs need not be produced unless
28 and until requested by counsel in connection with specific objections that have been asserted.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER

2

1

E.

Changes in Discovery Limitations

2

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

3 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules.
4

F.

Other Orders Concerning Discovery

5

The parties do not propose any other orders concerning discovery.

6
7 Dated: December 3, 2018

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
A Professional Corporation

8
9

By:

10

/s/ Christian R. Jagush
CHRISTIAN R. JAGUSH

(authorized 12/3/2018)

Attorneys for Plaintiff
S.A.A.S.

11
12

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney

13 Dated: December 3, 2018
14
By:

15
16

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

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED

21 Dated: January 2, 2019
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER

3