Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00270/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00270-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nicolai Tavilla, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Cephalon Incorporated, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. CV11-0270 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 The Court held an extended telephone conference with the parties on 

November 1, 2012, concerning a number of issues. This order will set forth the Court’s 

rulings. 

 1. The Court’s Second Case Management Order states that “Plaintiff(s) shall 

provide full and complete expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than October 5, 2012.” Doc. 103, ¶ 5(a) 

(emphasis in original). The Court’s order also states that “the Court intends to enforce 

the deadlines set forth in this Order, and [the parties] should plan their litigation activities 

accordingly.” Id. ¶ 9. 

 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to make expert disclosures by the 

October 5, 2012 deadline. Plaintiffs assert that they previously had disclosed several 

experts related to the statute of limitations defense, and that Defendant was aware of 

these experts on the October 5 deadline. 

 The Court will permit Plaintiffs to stand on expert reports disclosed before the 

Case 2:11-cv-00270-DGC Document 143 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 4
‐ 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 

October 5, 2012 deadline, but will hold those reports, as it does all expert reports, to the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 5 of the Second Case Management Order. Doc. 103. 

If Defendant believes any of the reports is deficient under the paragraph 5 requirements, 

Defendant may raise that issue with the Court. 

 The deadline for otherwise disclosing plaintiffs’ expert reports in this case has 

passed. The deadline was set at a hearing on May 25, 2012, with the case having been at 

issue since February of 2011. Plaintiffs have had ample time to make expert disclosures. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated during the conference call that his status as a lawyer in this case 

was in doubt after the Court’s order of September 27, 2012, but that order specifically 

stated that “Mr. Treon is not disqualified for purposes of pretrial litigation[.]” Doc. 130 

at 8. Moreover, the order was issued only 8 days before the expert disclosure deadline. 

Plaintiffs had four months after the Second Case Management Order and 20 months after 

the commencement of this case to prepare and present expert reports by that deadline. 

Furthermore, at the hearing on July 11, 2012 to discuss Defendant’s intention to file a 

motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court specifically stated that the 

disqualification motion would not change the existing discovery schedule: “my view is 

this doesn’t interrupt the schedule in the case. We’re moving ahead with that schedule.” 

Doc. 122 at 14. 

 2. The Court will order Mr. Tavilla to submit to a Rule 35 psychiatric exam as 

requested by Defendant. The Court concludes that Mr. Tavilla has placed his mental 

health in controversy by contending that he was mentally incompetent during years when 

the statute of limitations was otherwise running, and that Defendant has shown good 

cause for the exam. Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A). The exam will occur by 

November 20, 2012, on a date to be agreed upon by the parties. The exam will last no 

longer than 6 hours, may include written tests, and will occur at the office of Dr. Pitt. 

 Plaintiffs argued that the exam is unwarranted because Mr. Tavilla no longer 

claims to be suffering from a mental impairment, and the exam cannot reveal anything 

concerning his metal condition during the relevant years of 2004 to 2008. Defendant has 

Case 2:11-cv-00270-DGC Document 143 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 4
‐ 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 

noted, however, that Dr. Pitt believes that an examination of Mr. Tavilla is needed for 

Dr. Pitt to render an opinion concerning Mr. Tavilla’s mental health during the relevant 

years. The Court has reviewed the case law cited by Plaintiffs, Benchmaster, Inc. v. 

Kawaelde, 107 F.R.D. 752 (D. Mich. 1985), and related cases. The court in Benchmaster 

concluded that “a psychiatrist would not be able to assist the fact finder in determining 

whether a person suffered, rather than suffers from, an emotional distress or disturbance 

and, if so, the cause of that emotional suffering. The Court concludes that psychiatric 

testimony concerning Wokeck’s emotional state during the years 1972 through 1982 

would be speculative.” Id. at 753. This Court respectfully cannot reach the same 

conclusion in this case. If Defendant’s expert feels the need to conduct a psychiatric 

exam in order to opine on Mr. Tavilla’s claim of mental incompetency during earlier 

years, the Court cannot say that Mr. Tavilla’s present mental condition and traits are 

irrelevant to evaluating his claims of previous impairment. Because Mr. Tavilla’s mental 

health is the central issue to be decided during the statute of limitations trial in this case, 

and Plaintiffs themselves proposed to present testimony from Dr. Sucher that Mr. Tavilla 

was not competent, the Court concludes that Defendant has shown good cause to conduct 

the mental exam. 

 3. The parties and the Court discussed dates for the bench trial on the statute 

of limitations defense. Because time is needed to complete the mental exam and defense 

expert disclosures, and because the Court is in trial during the months of January and 

February and has commitments the first two weeks of March, the statute of limitations 

trial will be scheduled for three days, March 19-21, 2013. Each side will be allotted 

seven hours of trial time, with the Court keeping track of each side’s time. Opening and 

closing arguments, direct examination, and cross-examination will be counted against a 

party’s time. A final pretrial conference will be scheduled by separate order. 

 4. The schedule in the Second Case Management Order is adjusted as follows: 

 a. Defendant(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as 

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 

Case 2:11-cv-00270-DGC Document 143 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 4
‐ 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 

December 14, 2012.

 b. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than 

January 11, 2013. Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by 

initial experts. 

 c. Expert depositions shall be completed by February 15, 2013. 

 d. The deadline for dispositive motions is suspended, and will be 

rescheduled after the Court’s ruling on the statute of limitations trial. 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00270-DGC Document 143 Filed 11/02/12 Page 4 of 4