Dantzler v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
41
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND RE DEFENDANT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PLAINTIFF AMENDED filed by City and County of San Francisco. Discovery due by 1/10/2018. Rebuttal Reports due by 1/29/2018. Expert Discovery Cut-Off by 2/12/2018. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/11/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180
Chief Labor Attorney
JENICA D. MALDONADO, State Bar #266982
Deputy City Attorney
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
(415) 554-3915
E-Mail:
jenica.maldonado@sfgov.org
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
8
9
10
11
12
BRIAN K. ROSS, ESQ., State Bar #163940
11850 Dublin Avenue
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone:
(925) 803-9450
Attorney for Plaintiff
EUGENE F. DANTZLER
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
EUGENE F. DANTZLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
19
CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO,
20
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
STIPULATION AND AMENDED [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE EXPERT
DISCOVERY AND RE: DEFENDANT’S
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF
PLAINTIFF
Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
1
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
STIPULATION
1
2
Plaintiff Eugene Dantzler (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City and County of San Francisco
3
(“Defendant” or “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their attorneys, enter the
4
following stipulation regarding their mutual request to continue expert discovery and Defendant’s
5
psychological evaluation of Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(b)(6):
6
1.
On July 13, 2017, Plaintiff appeared for deposition at the Office of the City Attorney,
7
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. This was Plaintiff’s first appearance for
8
deposition.
9
2.
At deposition, Plaintiff disclosed that prior to his employment with the City he served
10
in the military. He testified that while enlisted he experienced a service-related incident that resulted
11
in diagnosis of multiple mental health conditions. He also testified that, from the date of the service-
12
related incident until present, he has received mental health treatment for such conditions from
13
providers at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Kaiser Permanente.
14
3.
Also at deposition, Plaintiff testified that he seeks damages for emotional distress
15
associated with the loss of his job with Defendant. He testified that he has suffered “more depression”
16
and “low self-esteem” as a result of the job loss. Before deposition, Plaintiff’s specific mental health
17
conditions had not been disclosed to Defendant in the litigation.
18
4.
The Parties jointly request a continuance of the expert discovery deadlines. The current
19
expert discovery deadlines are as follows: September 7 (initial reports); September 28 (rebuttal
20
reports); October 19 (expert discovery cut-off). (Dkt. No. 25) These dates are far in advance of the
21
last day for hearing on dispositive motions (November 30) and the trial date (March 12, 2018).
22
Defendant, with Plaintiff counsel’s consent, proposed the existing expert discovery deadlines before it
23
was aware of Plaintiff’s unique mental health conditions and had an opportunity to evaluate their
24
potential impact on Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages. With this information now
25
revealed, the City has determined it will need to retain an expert witness to opine as to the impact of
26
Plaintiff’s pre-existing mental health conditions on his claim for emotional distress damages. Because
27
of the expense associated with such discovery and because it will only become relevant if the Court
28
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
2
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
1
denies the City’s motion for summary judgment (which the City intends to file on October 26 and have
2
heard on November 30), the Parties jointly request that the Court postpone expert discovery until
3
closer to trial, as set forth in the proposed order. There is good cause to do so because such
4
information only becomes relevant if the case proceeds to trial and Plaintiff’s potential damage
5
recovery becomes at issue. Moreover, postponing this part of the litigation may avoid expense of
6
certain costs associated with expert discovery, should the Court grant the City’s motion.
6.
7
The Parties also agree that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, Plaintiff
8
Eugene Dantzler will appear for a psychological evaluation on December 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the
9
office of Joanna Berg, Ph.D at 5665 College Avenue, Suite 240 East, Oakland, California 94618. Dr.
10
Berg will perform an interview and a standard battery of psychological tests, including but not limited
11
to: (1) Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Inventory; (2) MCMI; (3) Rorschach Performance
12
Assessment System; and (4) Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank. It is anticipated that the examination
13
will take a minimum of six hours. Plaintiff should bring his reading glasses, if any, and any
14
medication he is currently taking. Plaintiff understands and agrees that he is not entitled to have his
15
attorney present at the examination and agrees to attend the examination without any other person or
16
representative.
7.
18
19
Dr. Berg will make an audio recording of the examination and Plaintiff consents to the
8.
17
Plaintiff will not sign any authorization or consent form for Dr. Berg, nor will he fill
same.
20
out any forms, charts, new patient records, insurance information, or histories for Dr. Berg or her
21
office. Plaintiff will complete written tests.
22
9.
The evaluation of Plaintiff will be limited to psychological and neuropsychological
23
evaluation and will not include any medical diagnostic tests or physical examination other than
24
pertaining to the psychological and neuropsychological evaluation.
25
10.
Dr. Berg must preserve all documents relating to these tests and procedures, including
26
any and all notes made by Dr. Berg and her staff at any time before, during or after the examination,
27
all raw data generated during the examination, all tests, forms, score sheets, or other writings
28
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
3
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
1
generated during the examination whether generated by Plaintiff or Dr. Berg. Dr. Berg must produce
2
all raw test data to Plaintiff’s designated expert in psychiatry/psychology, if any, within a reasonable
3
period after the completion of her examination and not less than one week after Plaintiff identifies his
4
designated expert and, through counsel, has requested production of such data.
11.
5
This examination, any audio recordings of this examination, Dr. Berg’s report, all
6
medical and psychotherapeutic information provided to Dr. Berg, and all test data are subject to the
7
protective order already in place in this matter.
12.
8
9
10
The examiner’s report will be timely produced to provide to Plaintiff’s counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 within 30 days after her completion of her examination
of Plaintiff. This stipulation constitutes Plaintiff’s formal request under Rule 35.
13.
11
Plaintiff also agrees to sign waivers authorizing release of his mental health records
12
from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, located at the VA Martinez Outpatient Clinic,
13
150 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 for mental health records from July 1, 2000 until present, and
14
from Kaiser Permanente, located in Oakland, California for mental health records from January 1,
15
2012 through December 31, 2014. Plaintiff agrees to provide the signed waivers to the City by
16
Wednesday, August 16, 2017. Plaintiff agrees that, if the City is required to file a motion to compel
17
timely production of these records from either the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or
18
Kaiser Permanente that Plaintiff will not oppose the City’s motion.
14.
19
Defendant shall provide a copy of this stipulation to Dr. Berg reasonably in advance of
20
the examination in an effort to minimize the possibility of disagreement or misunderstanding at the
21
time of examination.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
4
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
1
SO STIPULATED.
2
Dated: August 10, 2017
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER
Chief Labor Attorney
JENICA D. MALDONADO
Deputy City Attorney
3
4
5
6
By: /s/Jenica D. Maldonado
JENICA D. MALDONADO
7
8
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN K. ROSS 1
Dated: August 10, 2017
11
By: /s/Brian K. Ross
BRIAN K. ROSS, ESQ.
12
13
Attorney for Plaintiff
EUGENE F. DANTZLER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, the counsel for the City attests that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory, which shall serve in lieu of his
signature on the document.
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
5
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
ORDER
1
2
3
Having considered the Parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court modifies the
scheduling order as follows:
Current Date
4
5
Opening Expert Reports:
September 7, 2017
6
Rebuttal Reports:
September 28, 2017
7
Expert Discovery Cut-off:
New Date
10
January 17, 2018
January 29, 2018
February 12, 2018
12
February 26, 2018
October 19, 2017
8
9
10
All other dates set forth in the Case Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial (Dkt. No.
25) remain unchanged.
Moreover, the independent medical examination (“IME”) of Plaintiff will take place on Friday
11
December 18, 2017 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(b)(6) and pursuant to the
12
terms and conditions set forth in the Parties’ stipulation. If necessary, the Parties may mutually agree
13
on an alternative date and time for the IME, provided that the examination takes place before
14
December 18, 2017 and otherwise remains subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
15
stipulation.
Dated:
August 11, 2017
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD CHEN
hen
rd M. C
ge Edwa
Jud
H
ER
LI
RT
21
FO
NO
20
22
23
A
19
D
RDERE
IS SO O FIED
IT
DI
AS MO
R NIA
18
UNIT
ED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
17
S
16
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
24
25
26
27
28
STIP & AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISC AND FOR IME
Case No. C16-3119 EMC
6
c:\users\wtakao\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a056\01212532.docx
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?