Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

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 - 05cv1628

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO ALUBA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1628 JM(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION;

GRANTING LIMITED

DISCOVERY; SCHEDULING

ORDER

vs.

M/V SEAQUEST, INC.; LEGACY

FISHING COMPANY AND F/V LEGACY,

Defendants.

Defendant M/V Seaquest, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for reconsideration and amendment of

the trial schedule. Plaintiff Pedro Aluba opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the

court grants the motion for reconsideration, grants limited discovery on medical and damage issues

only, and sets a scheduling order on pretrial and trial matters.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a 45 year old Philippine national who was employed as a commercial fisherman by

Defendant. On December 30, 2004, Plaintiff suffered a tibial plateau fracture to his lower right leg

while stacking a net in dry dock in Pago Pago, American Samoa.

Plaintiff underwent surgery with bone allografting on January 2, 2005 in Hawaii. Following

complications and additional medical consultations, on August 25, 2006 Plaintiff underwent knee

replacement surgery. Following the surgery, the surgeon opined that the chance of serious

complications resulting from the surgery, including Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome

(“RSD/CRPS”) was around one in 2000. (McMullen Decl. ¶5). In early October, Defendant learned

Case 3:05-cv-01628-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 05cv1628

for the first time that Plaintiff suffered from RSD/CRPS. (Motion at p.4:26-27).

On August 16, 2006 the court conducted a pretrial conference, executed the Pretrial Order, and

confirmed a September 11, 2006 trial date. Shortly before trial, on or about September 5, 2006, the

parties stipulated to continue the trial and proceed to mediation in San Francisco in an attempt to settle

this case. The case did not settle at mediation for several reasons, including the potential for increased

medical expenses arising from symptoms associated with RSD/CRPS. (McMullen Decl. ¶14). On

October 27, 2006, December 15, 2006, and on December 18, 2006 the court conducted status

conferences to monitor the progress of the case.

DISCUSSION

Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual

circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Here, the court finds that it is in

the interests of justice to permit additional discovery to fully develop and discover the extent of

Plaintiff’s injuries. The August 16, 2006 denial of Defendant’s request to conduct additional

discovery and to call expert witnesses on damages was predicated in large part upon the need to

proceed to trial -- a trial that has now been continued for over five months on both parties’

representations that mediation and/or further medical treatment would likely resolve outstanding

issues.

Since the court executed the pretrial order, Plaintiff underwent knee replacement surgery.

Since then, Plaintiff has experienced medical complications. Defendant represents that the costs

associated with RSD/CRPS may fall in the $2 to 4 million range. (McMullen Decl. ¶15). The

substantial increase in potential damages was an unforseen event at the time of the pretrial conference.

At the time of Defendant’s initial request for reconsideration of the court’s earlier pretrial

orders, and in Defendant’s supplemental papers filed in support of reconsideration, Defendant has

emphasized that a continuance of the trial date, as well as the needs for expanded discovery and

defense experts, were predicated upon Plaintiff’s changing and allegedly worsening medical condition

Case 3:05-cv-01628-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 05cv1628

and damage picture. Although in Defendant’s initial pleading there was a reference to a request for

a liability expert, Mr. Medina, to be called, the gravamen of Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

has always been the desire to fully defend the accelerating and worsening medical and damage claims

of Plaintiff. It was in the spirit of that request and the parties’ desire to explore mediation that the

court agreed to continue the original trial date. Further, in later status conferences with counsel, it was

the intention of the court, once it was reported that mediation efforts were unsuccessful, to place the

parties in the same relative positions they were in at the time of the initial pretrial conference but with

Defendant permitted to request, over the objection of Plaintiff, to complete discovery for its expert

witnesses on medical and damage issues and fully defend thereon. In essence, reconsideration of the

court’s earlier order places Defendant in a better defensive posture than if trial had proceeded as

originally set. Indeed, in Defendant’s supplemental request papers, the following requests were made:

(1) New Designation of Experts: Defendant intends to add its retained

experts, Dr. Jonathan Schleimer (neurologist) and Dr. Joseph Shurman

(anesthesiologist);

(2) Re-do Rule 26 Disclosures: the parties may prepare and serve new

disclosures per expert, and incorporate the new claims asserted by

Plaintiff’

(3) Conduct Expert Discovery: includes the completion of depositions of

Dr. Sam Maywood (anesthesiologist) and Carol Hyland (rehabilitation

expert);

(4) Meet and Confer Re Duplicative Experts: e.g., plaintiff currently has

two experts (Ms. Hyland and Dr. Maywood) qualified to testify

regarding life care management and two liability experts;

(5) Further Independent Medical Examination: by Dr. Stuart Marshall

(orthopedic surgeon) and Dr. Joseph Shurman; and 

(6) Meet and Confer, and Revise the Pretrial Order with additional

witnesses and documents.

(Supplemental Motion at p.3:7-19).

At oral argument on January 23, 2007 Defendant requested that it be permitted to make Rule

26 disclosures for a liability expert and proceed with discovery on liability. This specific request is

denied for several reasons:

(1) Reopening this case to allow defense liability experts to proceed from

“square one” would, in all probability, cause the trial date to be

continued at significant hardship to Plaintiff in the form of added

expense and inconvenience.

Case 3:05-cv-01628-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 05cv1628

(2) Granting the request would provide a collateral and unintended benefit

for Defendant as a result of the initial trial continuance which

continuance was granted only because of alleged changed medical

circumstances.

(3) Under the present pretrial order, Defendant will be permitted to

challenge liability through cross-examination of any expert to be called

by Plaintiff and with the ability to call any percipient witness for the

purpose of undermining the factual underpinning of any expert opinion.

Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the court concludes that an order permitting

limited but additional discovery and the filing of an amended pretrial order will foster the just and

equitable resolution of this case. Accordingly, the court orders the following:

(1) The parties may redesignate experts on issues of damages and medical condition only.

These disclosures must be made no later than January 31, 2007;

(2) The parties must make appropriate Rule 26 disclosures for these experts by January

31, 2007;

(3) The parties may conduct additional expert discovery. The parties are instructed to

cooperate and complete such expert discovery by February 21, 2007. Unless otherwise

agreed by the parties, all expert depositions shall occur in San Diego County;

(4) Any further independent medical examinations must be completed by February 2, 2007

and any required Rule 26 disclosure with respect to these examinations no later than

by February 7, 2007;

(4) The parties must file an amended pretrial order no later than March 2, 2007;

(5) The final pretrial conference and motions in limine hearing date is calendared for

March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. All motions in limine must be filed no later than March

5, 2006 and any opposition or response by March 12, 2007; and 

(6) Jury trial is calendared for April 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-01628-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 01/24/07 Page 4 of 4