ABF Freight Systems, Inc. v. United States Of America et al

Filing 20

ORDER Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/16/2011 02:30 PM. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

1

6

MELINDA L. HAAG (CSBN132612)
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)
Chief, Civil Division
JUAN D. WALKER (CSBN 208008)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for the Federal Defendant

8

12

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
CHRISTOPHER J. NEVIS, SB# 162812
E-Mail: [e-mail]
MICHAEL S. ROMEO, SB# 180978
E-Mail: [e-mail]
One Sansome Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13

Attorneys for Defendant WEST BAY BUILDERS, INC.

14

LAW OFFICES OF CLARK W. PATTEN
Clark W. Patten (SBN 77707)
21C Orinda Way #362
Orinda, CA 94563
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.

2
3
4
5

9
10
11

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WEST )
)
BAY BUILDERS,
)
)
Defendants.

No. C-10-5188 SI

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.,

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

1

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Order Setting Case Management

2

Conference and ADR Deadlines, the parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Case

3

Management Statement and Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case

4

Management Order in this case.

5

1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

6

This action is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(b)(1).

7

Service has been completed.

8

2. FACTS

9

A. Brief chronology of the facts:

10

Plaintiff: Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 12, 2008, its employee, Thomas Mills,

11

was delivering or picking up materials from the Department of Homeland Security at 630 Sansome

12

Street, San Francisco, California. While exiting the building at the Jackson Street shipping and

13

receiving area, Thomas Mills slipped and fell on a metal ramp associated with the raised loading

14

dock. The metal ramp was wet and thus provided a less than adequate slip resistance to Thomas

15

Mills, thereby creating a hazardous, dangerous and unsafe condition for those walking on the

16

metal ramp. The Federal Defendant and West Bay, an agent doing work for the Federal Defendant

17

in and around the building, knew or should have known of the danger and negligently failed to

18

warn of the danger. As a result of Thomas Mills' fall he sustained injuries to his low back, neck,

19

right shoulder, and right upper extremity, which caused him to be medically disabled from

20

working in his usual and customary job for Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks $200,000 in reimbursement of

21

the past and future workers' compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of Thomas Mills as a

22

result of the December 12, 2008 incident.

23

Federal Defendant: The Federal Defendant denies the allegations.

24

West Bay Builders: West Bay Builders denies the allegations.

25
26
27

B. The principal factual issues in dispute:
The parties believe the following factual issues are presently in dispute:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by the negligent or otherwise

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

2

1

wrongful acts or omissions of Defendants.

2

(2) Whether the Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by negligent or otherwise

3

wrongful acts or omissions of the Plaintiff and/or a third party.

4

(3) The percentage of fault of the Plaintiff, other third party and/or Defendants in causing the

5

damages alleged by the Plaintiff.

6

(4) The amount and nature of Plaintiff’s damages, if any.

7

3. LEGAL ISSUES

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The parties believe the following legal issues are presently in dispute:
(1) Whether Plaintiff can prove the damages claimed in the complaint resulted from
Defendants’ negligence.
(2) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed in the complaint.
4. MOTIONS
No prior motions have been filed, and no motions are pending.
5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
None at this time.
6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
Plaintiff: Plaintiff has put in place a litigation hold and has directed all relevant individuals
at the agency to retain all records and documents regarding the above-captioned case
Federal Defendant: The Federal Defendant has put in place a litigation hold and has

20

directed all relevant individuals at the agency to retain all records and documents regarding the

21

above-captioned case.

22

West Bay Builders: West Bay Builders has put in place a litigation hold and has directed all

23

relevant individuals at the company to retain all records and documents regarding the above-

24

captioned case.

25

7. DISCLOSURES

26
27

The parties have agreed to serve initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26 on or before the date of the Initial Case Management Conference.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

3

1
2

8. DISCOVERY
The parties have discussed a discovery plan for this case. Discovery will be needed on the

3

following subjects: (1) the circumstances giving rise to and the facts surrounding the accident in

4

question; and (2) the scope, nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claims for damages. To that end, the

5

parties anticipate propounding interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production

6

of documents, and anticipate the depositions of relevant witnesses identified in their initial

7

disclosures. Furthermore, the parties will designate experts to, among other issues, determine the

8

extent to which, if at all, the accident caused or contributed to the medical treatment that

9

Plaintiff’s employee received subsequent to the date of the accident. Defendants may request an

10

Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff’s employee.

11

At this time, the parties do not foresee issues concerning disclosure or discovery of

12

electronically stored information and expect that production of electronically stored information in

13

paper form will suffice.

14

The parties request that the usual discovery limitations set forth in the Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure and Civil Local Rules, including the 25-interrogatory limit under Rule 33 apply.

16

However, the parties expect extensive deposition discovery and request a 20-deposition limit

17

instead of the usual 10 deposition limit under Rule 30.

18

9. CLASS ACTIONS

19

Not applicable.

20

10. RELATED CASES

21

State Court Case: On December 9, 2010, Thomas Mills, Plaintiff’s employee, filed a

22

lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court captioned Thomas Mills v. West Bay Builders, Inc.

23

et al., Case No. GCG-505005. The suit is against West Bay Builders and Security

24

Consultants Group, Inc., the independent contractor who provides security at the 230

25

Sansome Street location. The lawsuit seeks damages for personal injuries resulting from the

26

same occurrence as the instant matter.

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

4

1

Federal Court Case: On September 20, 2011, Thomas Mills, Plaintiff’s employee, filed a

2

complaint in this district on captioned, Thomas Mills v. United States of America, Case No.

3

CV-11-4663 (JCS). The complaint seeks damages for personal injuries resulting from the

4

same occurrence as the instant matter.

5

11. RELIEF

6

Plaintiffs: Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants in the sum of $200,000.

7

Federal Defendant: Defendant seeks no damages in this action, other than dismissal and

8

costs.

9

West Bay Builders: Defendant seeks no damages in this action, other than dismissal and

10

costs.

11

12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR

12

The parties are willing to engage in mediation the Court-administered ADR department

13

after discovery has progressed sufficiently for a meaningful session.

14

13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

15
16

The parties do not consent to a magistrate judge.
14. OTHER REFERENCES

17

None at this time.

18

15. NARROWING OF ISSUES

19

None at this time.

20

16. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

21
22
23
24
25

The parties do not believe an expedited schedule is appropriate for this case.
17. SCHEDULING
Please see Paragraph 20 below.
18. TRIAL
By statute, trial in this action will be a bench trial. The parties anticipate that trial will

26

last four days.

27

19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

5

1

Plaintiff: Plaintiff has filed the appropriate disclosure.

2

Defendant West Bay Builders: West Bay Builders has filed the appropriate disclosure.

3

Federal Defendant: As a governmental entity, defendant is exempt from the disclosure

4

requirement of Civil Local Rule 3-16.

5

20. OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY FACILITATE DISPOSITION

6

Shortly, the parties intend, either by stipulation or administrative motion, to request that the

7

Court relate and consolidate the two federal district court matters. Assuming that the cases

8

will be related and consolidated, the parties propose that the Court continue the Initial Case

9

Management Conference to December 16, 2011. (The last day for the Federal Defendant to

10

answer the Complaint which was filed on September 20, 2011, and served on October 6, 2011,

11

is December 5, 2011.) At that time, the case will be at issue and all of the relevant parties will

12

be before the Court.

13
14

DATED: October 20, 2011

15
16

/s/
JUAN D. WALKER
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Federal Defendant

17
18
19

DATED: October 20, 2011

20

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

/s/
MICHAEL S. ROMEO
Attorneys for Defendant WEST BAY

21
22
23

MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney

DATED: October 20, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF CLARK W. PATTEN

24
25
26

/s/
CLARK W. PATTEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff ABF

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

6

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Initial Case Management Conference is continued from October 28, 2011 to December 16,

3

2011 at 2:30pm, and the parties will file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement one

4

week prior to the Initial Case Management Conference.

5
6
7

10/24/11
Dated:_____________________

_________________________________________
SUSAN ILSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE INITIAL CMC
C 10-5188 SI

7