Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00746/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

JOHN F. GISLA, SB #42829

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2740

Attorneys for the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNDA ZIMMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

No. 2:06-cv-0746-MCE-GGH

INITIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT

(a) Summary of Claims. Plaintiff Lynda Zimmer filed this

medical malpractice complaint alleging that her Air Force doctors

negligently failed to inform her of the results of diagnostic

testing that indicated lung cancer. Defendant United States of

America denies that Plaintiff's Air Force doctors failed to inform

her of the results of diagnostic testing; or that the medical

treatment Plaintiff received from the Air Force fell below the

reasonable standard of medical care; or that Plaintiff sustained any

damages as a result of the medical treatment she received from the

Air Force.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00746-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(b) Service of Process. Defendant United States of America has

filed an Answer, thereby eliminating the need for service on the

United States.

(c) Joinder of Additional Parties. Not anticipated.

(d) Amendment of Pleadings. The parties have stipulated that

Plaintiff's demand for jury trial be stricken.

(e) Statutory Basis For Jurisdiction and Venue. Defendant

United States acknowledges that this court has facial jurisdiction

over the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2674 & 1346(b)(1). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

 1391(e) in that the medical treatment that is the subject of

Plaintiff's Complaint was provided in this District.

(f) Discovery Plan. Pursuant to FRCP 26(f), the parties agree

to the following discovery plan:

(1) Within 30 days after issuance by the Court of its pretrial scheduling order, the parties will exchange the information

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

(2) Discovery is needed on the issues of negligence,

proximate cause and damages. Discovery will be completed by the

discovery cutoff date set forth in (h) below. There is no need for

discovery to be conducted in phases, or be limited to or focused

upon particular issues.

(3) Each party will be allowed 100 interrogatories. 

Reasonable subparts of an interrogatory shall count as one

interrogatory.

(4) The number of depositions allowed by FRCP 30(a)(2)(A)

is sufficient, except that depositions of designated expert

witnesses will not count against the limit. 

Case 2:06-cv-00746-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The duration of depositions specified by FRCP 30(d)(2) is

sufficient.

(5) The number of requests for admissions will not be

limited.

(6) Plaintiff will designate expert witnesses and file

expert witness reports by the date set forth in (h) below. Defendant

will designate expert witnesses and file expert witness reports by

the date set forth in (h) below. Supplemental reports will be

served within 30 days of the report to which they respond.

(7) All discovery limits and deadlines will be subject to

change by written agreement of the parties without the need for

court order; and by court order pursuant to noticed motion.

(g) Anticipated Motions and Scheduling. See (h) below for the

scheduling of non-discovery motions.

(h) Tentative Proposed Dates: Subject to the conditions set

forth below, the parties tentatively propose the following pre-trial

dates:

February 2, 2007 Plaintiff’s designation of experts

March 5, 2007 Defendant’s designation of experts

April 20, 2007 Discovery cutoff

May 11, 2007 Deadline to file dispositive motions,

including Daubert motions

July 2007 Pre-trial Conference

September 2007 Trial (four court days)

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00746-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CONDITIONS RELATING TO TENTATIVE PROPOSED PRETRIAL SCHEDULE:

1) On October 19, 2006, Plaintiff Lynda Zimmer underwent major

surgery for lung cancer. Plaintiff's surgeon has advised Plaintiff

that he is unable to advise Plaintiff regarding her expected

remaining life expectancy until a period of time after her surgery. 

If Plaintiff's expected remaining life expectancy is nine months or

longer, Plaintiff will agree to the foregoing proposed pre-trial

schedule. If, however, Plaintiff's expected remaining life

expectancy is less than nine months, Plaintiff intends to request

the Court to order an expedited trial schedule, with a trial date in

about May 2007.

2) Government counsel is scheduled for surgery on November 2,

2006. If Government counsel is able to return to full-time work by

January 2, 2007, the Government agrees to the foregoing proposed

pre-trial schedule. If, however, Government counsel is unable to

return to full-time work by January 2, 2007, the Government intends

to request the Court to set the pre-trial schedule with a trial date

in January 2008.

The parties therefore request that the deadline to file their

Joint Status Report be extended from October 27, 2006 to January 2,

2007. By January 2, 2007, the parties will know whether they will

be able to agree to the tentative pre-trial schedule set forth

above.

(i) Trial Time. Four court days. Plaintiff has demanded a

jury. The parties have stipulated, however, that Plaintiff's demand

for jury trial be stricken.

(j) Special Procedures. Not indicated.

(k) Modification of Standard Procedures. Not indicated.

Case 2:06-cv-00746-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

(l) Related Cases. None.

(m) Settlement. The parties are informally exploring an

expedited settlement. The parties will explore formal settlement

after discovery is completed. The parties prefer that the trial

judge be different than the settlement judge.

(n) Other Matters. None.

WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court extend the

deadline to file the Joint Status Report from October 27, 2006 to

January 2, 2007.

DATED: October 24, 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

 By: /s/ John F. Gisla 

JOHN F. GISLA

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States

DATED: October 23, 2006 /s/ Greg A. Meyer 

GREG A. MEYER

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

Pursuant to the request of the parties to extend the deadline

to file their Joint Status Report from October 27, 2006 to December

15, 2006, and for good cause, the time for the parties to file their

Joint Status Report is extended from October 27, 2006 to January 2,

2007.

DATED: October 25, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00746-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 10/25/06 Page 5 of 5