Gonzales -v- Novosel

Filing 81

ORDER re 80 Case Management Statement filed by Michael Novosel Further Case Management Conference set for 10/10/2008 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/06/08. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2008)

Download PDF
1 Kimberly E. Colwell, Esq. (SBN: 127604) kcolwell@meyersnave.com 2 Tricia L. Hynes, Esq. (SBN: 212550) thynes@meyersnave.com 3 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 4 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 5 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108 6 Attorneys for Defendants Officer Ron Carlino, Officer Sean Curmi, Officer Anthony Bordigon and Officer 7 Jason Fukushima EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 9 Attorney General of the State of California PAUL T. HAMMERNESS 10 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOHN P. DEVINE, State Bar No. 170773 11 TOM BLAKE, State Bar No. 51885 Deputy Attorneys General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 12 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5522 13 Fax: (415) 703-5480 Email: John.Devine@doj.ca.gov 14 15 Attorneys for Defendant California Highway Patrol Officer M. Novosel 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MICHAEL NOVOSEL, et al., Defendants. NELSON GONZALES, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case No. C-07-04720 CRB ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 10, 2008 AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 8 ORDER Come now defendants California Highway Patrol Officer M. Novosel and South San Francisco Police Officers R. Carlino, S. Curmi, A. Bordigon, J. Fukushima (hereinafter "Defendants") who submit the following Administrative Request and Proposed Order: Admin. Request for Further CMC and to Compel Discovery Gonzales v. Novosel, et al. C-07-04720 CRB 1 1 The defendants request that the Court schedule a further Case Management Conference in this 2 matter in order to seek the Court's guidance and direction to permit defendants to complete the 3 Independent Medical Examinations of plaintiff and have meaningful depositions of plaintiff's 4 expert(s) before trial. Trial in this case is set for October 20, 2008. 5 The defendants, with the apparent cooperation of plaintiff, have been working diligently to 6 complete a psychiatric IME of the plaintiff on dates that accommodate all parties, counsel, and the 7 doctors. However, plaintiff's counsel have rescheduled the psychological examination multiple 8 times, representing that plaintiff was unexpectedly unable to attend or to complete the sessions due 9 to a variety of health problems, including nausea, dental pain, and bed sores. The examinations were 10 canceled within minutes before they were set to begin. 11 The parties had agreed to exchange expert reports on October 3, 2008, and have most recently 12 agreed to postpone simultaneous exchange of the remaining reports to October 10, 2008. But as of 13 today's date, plaintiff has not completed even the psychiatric testing with defendants' psychologist, 14 Ronald Roberts, Ph.D., a necessary preliminary to his examination by the defense psychiatric expert, 15 Emily Keram, M.D. Plaintiff has canceled three appointments with Dr. Roberts at the last minute 16 and has therefore not been examined by the State's expert, Dr. Keram (all of the appointments with 17 Dr. Keram were canceled). The psychiatric issues are particularly significant to this trial because 18 the plaintiff contends that he has amnesia as to certain, but not all, of the events at issue. The 19 defense experts also should have an opportunity to examine the plaintiff and consider his deposition 20 testimony in relation to issues of "suicide by cop," the effects of intoxicants, and substance abuse. 21 In addition, the psychiatric and psychological issues are salient to the plaintiff's damages contentions 22 as he alleges substantial expense for mental health treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, 23 clinical depression, and flash-backs. 24 Plaintiff's deposition was completed only two days ago (on October 1) following multiple 25 cancellations and the Court's denial of his application for an order that he be deposed on "four-hour 26 stand-by" at his home. The defense experts have not received transcripts of this week's deposition 27 sessions, which have been ordered on an expedited basis. The defense experts should have an 28 opportunity to review the complete deposition before finalizing their reports. The defendants have Admin. Request for Further CMC and to Compel Discovery Gonzales v. Novosel, et al. C-07-04720 CRB 2 1 been deprived of the opportunity to complete their expert witness preparation and reports as of this 2 date. Further, defendants to date have received only two of the plaintiff's experts' reports, both 3 dealing with damages, and will not have the opportunity to assess the plaintiff's contentions or 4 depose any of his experts until less than ten business days before trial is to begin. 5 10:00 Based on these facts, the defendants respectfully request that on October 10, 2008, at 10:30 6 a.m., following the Summary Judgment hearing in this case, the Court conduct a further Case 7 Management Conference to provide guidance on the conduct of expert discovery and such related 8 matters as the Court may find appropriate. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Admin. Request for Further CMC and to Compel Discovery Gonzales v. Novosel, et al. C-07-04720 CRB Dated: October 3, 2008. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tricia L. Hynes Tricia L. Hynes, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Officer Ron Carlino, Officer Sean Curmi, Officer Anthony Bordigon and Officer Jason Fukushima EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California /s/ John P. Devine JOHN P. DEVINE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant California Highway Patrol Officer Michael Novosel 3 1 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED 5 6 7 8 Dated: october 06 , 2008 [Proposed] ORDER UNIT ED 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Charles R. Breyer United States District Judge S S DISTRICT TE C TA ER N D IS T IC T R OF Admin. Request for Further CMC and to Compel Discovery Gonzales v. Novosel, et al. C-07-04720 CRB 4 A C LI FO J arles R udge Ch . Breyer R NIA O OR IT IS S DERED RT U O NO RT H

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?