Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01661/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01661-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

- 1 

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

ANDREA M. MILLER [SBN: 88992] 

NAGELEY, MEREDITH & MILLER, INC. 

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

Telephone: (916) 386-8282 

Facsimile: (916) 386-8952 

Attorneys for ROSE ART INDUSTRIES, INC. AND TOYS R US, INC. 

KRISTEN K. PRESTON [SBN: 125455] 

JONES & DYER, 

A Professional Corporation 

1800 J. Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 352-5959 

Facsimile: (916) 442-5959 

Attorneys for MEGA BRANDS, INC. 

ROBERT G. SIMPSON [SBN: 67556] 

LAW OFFICES OF REINER, SIMPSON, 

 TIMMONS & SLAUGHTER

2851 Park Marina Drive 

P. O. Box 49490 

Redding, CA 96049-4940 

Telephone: (530) 241-1905 

Facsimile: (530) 241-0662 

Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM FINLEY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM FINLEY by and through his 

Guardian Ad Litem, SARA FINLEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROSE ART INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

/ 

Case No.: 2:06-CV01661-DEL-CMK

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

TRIAL DATE: June 28, 2008 

Case 2:06-cv-01661-JAM-CMK Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 5
- 2 

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

All parties to this matter, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate that the 

Scheduling Conference Order issued by this Court on December 19, 2006, be amended 

to extend the time for disclosure of experts from June 1, 2007 to August 1, 2007. 

Defendants ROSE ART INDUSTRIES, INC. and TOYS “R” US are represented by 

Andrea M. Miller of the law firm of Nageley, Meredith & Miller, Inc., Defendant MEGA 

BRANDS, INC. is represented by Kristen Preston of the law firm of Jones & Dyer, and 

plaintiff WILLIAM FINLEY, through his Guardian Ad Litem SARA FINLEY, is represented 

by Robert G. Simpson of the Law Offices of Reiner, Simpson, Timmons & Slaughter 

The Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, issued on December 19, 2006, requires 

disclosure of experts, including expert witness reports, on June 1, 2007. The parties 

recognize that, given the existing facts and circumstances of this case, the date for 

disclosure cannot be met and must be extended. These facts were not yet fully 

developed at the time that the parties filed their Joint Scheduling Conference Statement 

pursuant to which the Court issued the Order that the parties now seek to amend. 

Plaintiff is currently a 6 year old child. The complaint filed on his behalf alleges 

that on or about August 5, 2005, the minor ingested magnets from a toy that resulted in 

perforations in his cecum discovered during surgery. Plaintiff contends that there are ongoing medical issues resulting from the surgery. Plaintiff is currently scheduling 

appointments with physicians to complete testing and provide defendants sufficient 

information to request an Independent Medical Examination. 

Pediatric gastroenterologist Richard Quan, M.D. examined the minor plaintiff in 

September 2006. At that time, the minor’s mother reported that the minor experienced 

daily bouts of diarrhea. As of the date of that examination, Dr. Quan recommended 

additional diagnostic testing in the event the minor continued to experience diarrhea. To 

the knowledge of Dr. Quan, no testing has been performed. 

Case 2:06-cv-01661-JAM-CMK Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 5
- 3 

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

The mother, Sarah Finley, has recently testified that this diarrhea problem persists 

and is sufficiently severe to have compelled Ms. Finley to not start the minor in school as 

a kindergartener in the fall of 2006. At the time of deposition, MS. Finley had not been 

able to pursue the recommended diagnostic testing and had not yet scheduled an 

appointment with any physician for further examination or testing of the minor’s condition. 

Ms. Finley is in the process of pursuing the testing issue with the plaintiff’s surgeon. 

The ongoing medical condition of the minor plaintiff and his prognosis is a central 

issue in this case in terms of the scope of damages, at a minimum. Any attempt to meet 

the presently-scheduled disclosure date will result in less than complete and satisfactory 

expert reports. Any such reports as would be filed would doubtless require modification 

once plaintiff’s contentions are made more clear and his medical condition is fully 

documented. 

Plaintiff alleges that he ingested magnets from a toy manufactured and distributed 

by the defendants. Issues exist with regard to the actual product identification and the 

retailer from which the product was purchased as well as disposal of the product prior to 

notification to defendants regarding plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff Sarah Finley has 

testified that her husband Adam Finley and his mother Rebecca Gould are the persons 

most knowledgeable on behalf of plaintiff. The depositions of these witnesses are 

currently being arranged. The testimony of these witnesses may necessarily impact the 

ability of experts retained to address liability issues in this case and, therefore, to provide 

complete and satisfactory expert reports. 

Trial in this matter is scheduled for January 28, 2008. Discovery is scheduled to 

close on August 10, 2007. The parties currently have scheduled with Magistrate Judge 

Ed Brennan an early settlement conference on May 31, 2007. No previous extensions of 

dates included in the initial scheduling order have been requested by the defendants. It 

Case 2:06-cv-01661-JAM-CMK Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 5
- 4 

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

is not anticipated by the parties that extending the time for disclosure of expert witnesses 

from June 1, 2007 to August 1, 2007 will, at least at this juncture, affect any other 

scheduled dates. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16(b), “good cause” standard applied 

in consideration of an application such as this is met in this case. As the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals held in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992), the moving parties must show that it has good cause for the amendment it 

seeks and that even with the exercise of due diligence they cannot meet the order’s 

timetable. 

The parties will not have a complete medical record to provide to an expert prior to 

the disclosure date. Neither will the parties have a complete history of the product, its 

purchase, use and disposition. The factual basis regarding these issues is exclusively 

within the control of plaintiff or witnesses within plaintiff’s control. Defendants have 

diligently pursued discovery on these issues. Circumstances have prevented the fruition 

of the discovery plan agreed to by the parties. Diligence is reflected in this factual history 

and by the fact that the parties are making this motion. Requiring the parties to proceed 

under these conditions risks a complete inability to present competent evidence 

regarding several key issues in the case. 

 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants request that the court amend the 

scheduling order as requested. 

DATED: May 16, 2007 NAGELEY, MEREDITH & MILLER, INC. 

By: /s/ Andrea M. Miller________

 ANDREA M. MILLER 

Attorneys For ROSE ART INDUSTRIES, 

 INC. AND TOYS R US, INC. 

Case 2:06-cv-01661-JAM-CMK Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 5
- 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

DATED: May 16, 2007 JONES & DYER 

By:_____/s/ Kristen R. Preston___________ 

KRISTEN R. PRESTON 

Attorneys for MEGA BRANDS, INC. 

DATED: May 16, 2007 REINER, SIMPSON, TIMMONS & 

SLAUGHTER 

By:___/s/ Robert G. Simpson____________ 

ROBERT G. SIMPSON 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM FINLEY 

ORDER 

The Court, having read the foregoing stipulation and being fully apprised of all the 

facts and circumstances hereby orders that the Scheduling Order of December 19, 2006, 

be amended to reflect that expert disclosure shall be made on August 1, 2007, rather 

than June 1, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: May 21, 2007 

 /s/ David F. Levi________________________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-01661-JAM-CMK Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 5 of 5