Kormylo, M.D. et al v. Forever Resorts, LLC et al
Filing
55
Amended order after telephonic Discovery Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 8/18/2014.(av1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NICHOLAS KORMYLO, M.D.,
et al.,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOREVER RESORTS, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 13-CV-0511-JM (WVG)
AMENDED ORDER AFTER
TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY
CONFERENCE
18
On August 15, 2014, this Court held a telephonic Discovery Conference with
19
counsel for all parties. Mr. Robert Francavilla and Ms. Angela Jae participated on
20
behalf of Plaintiffs, Dr. Nicholas Kormylo, Kimberly Kormylo, and Bruce Kormylo
21
(collectively “Plaintiffs”). Ms. Chelsea Yuan participated on behalf of Defendants
22
Forever Resorts, LLC and Kenneth Williams (collectively “Defendants”), and Mr.
23
Douglas Guy participated on behalf of Third Party Defendant Scott Neeley.
24
On June 13, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Party
25
Complaint. (Doc. No. 44.) On August 5, 2014, the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller, United
26
States District Judge, granted Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. No. 50.) On August 13,
27
2014, Defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the Boy Scouts of America and
28
a number of individuals (collectively “Boy Scouts of America”). (Doc. No. 51.) The
1
13CV0511
1
Boy Scouts of America have not been served, nor have they answered the Third Party
2
Complaint, and accordingly, did not participate in the Discovery Conference held on
3
August 15, 2014.
4
The purpose of the Discovery Conference was to discuss, among other things,
5
whether a planned inspection of the vessels involved in the accident, which is the
6
subject of this lawsuit, should occur as planned on August 19, 2014. Defendants
7
requested that the inspection be delayed or continued until after the Boy Scouts of
8
America have entered the lawsuit and can participate in the inspection. Plaintiff and
9
Third Party Defendant Neeley objected to any delay of the inspection on several
10
grounds, most notably that extensive coordination of experts has occurred, some with
11
non-refundable airline tickets. Also, as was previously discussed and agreed to, the
12
parties have agreed to exchange any and all data obtained as a result of the inspection,
13
and this data can be shared with the Boy Scouts of America.
The Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ request to delay the inspection. The
14
15
inspection of the houseboats and chase boat shall proceed as previously planned.
16
Further, Plaintiffs made two requests. First, Plaintiffs requested that the
17
houseboat in question, from which Plaintiff Dr. Kormylo purportedly dove, be moved
18
from its current location at Defendants’ dock, to a nearby cove where the houseboat
19
would be beached. Plaintiffs explain that it is necessary to have the houseboat in a
20
stationary position, which can only be accomplished by beaching it, so that their experts
21
can take accurate and precise measurements by use of a scanning device. Defendants
22
objected, stating that one of the houseboats in question has been removed from the
23
water and is sitting stationary in parking lot. The other houseboat, from which Plaintiff
24
Dr. Kormylo allegedly jumped, is tied up securely at the dock.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
2
13CV0511
1
Plaintiffs’ request is therefore DENIED. In addition to being able to take the
2
measurements that they need, either from the houseboat in the parking lot, or the
3
houseboat that is securely tied to the dock, each boat should have published specifica-
4
tions and diagrams which can be used by Plaintiffs’ experts to obtain accurate
5
measurements.
6
The second request made by Plaintiffs was to allow someone, presumably
7
Plaintiff Dr. Kormylo, to jump off of the houseboat in question while being filmed, in
8
an effort to “recreate” his activities before the accident. The purpose of the filming,
9
from the vantage point of where the chase boat may have been, is to determine that
10
someone in the chase boat should have easily seen Plaintiff Dr. Kormylo jump off of
11
the houseboat. Defendants object for reasons which were previously discussed.
12
Defendants’ objection is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are not permitted to film Plaintiff Dr.
13
Kormylo, or anyone else, jumping from the back of the houseboat.
14
Additionally, Plaintiffs raised an anticipatory objection that Defendants may
15
conduct their own independent inspection, separate and apart from the joint inspection
16
that is scheduled to occur on or about August 19, 2014. Plaintiffs anticipate that any
17
independent inspection made by Defendants will not be shared. Whether or not
18
Defendants choose to perform tests independent of the joint testing or inspection that
19
will occur on or about August 19, 2014, is entirely within their prerogative, and any
20
data obtained from that inspection, separate and apart from the joint inspection, need
21
not be disclosed or released until expert discovery.
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
13CV0511
1
During the Discovery Conference, the parties brought several issues to the
2
Court’s attention that were prematurely raised and wholly unnecessary. The parties are
3
reminded that they are to meet and confer whenever issues arise, to have a good faith
4
discussion about those issues, and only bring the unresolved issues to the Court’s
5
attention. Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV(A).
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
DATED: August 18, 2014
8
9
10
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
13CV0511
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?