Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENEA SCOTT, REGINA BOYCE AND

JULIE HOLMES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMPATH K. SURYADEVERA, et al.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-1282 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/8/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 5/22/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 6/9/09

Settlement Conference Date:

6/4/09 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 8/17/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 9/29/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-20 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

March 27, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Bingham McCutchen LLP by Sandra Zuniga, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs. 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth by Alice

Dostalova, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Madera Community

Hospital. 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 19
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

Baker, Manock & Jensen by Sherrie M. Flynn, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendant Mohammad Anwar, M.D.

William A. Krabbenhoft, Esq., Deputy Attorney General,

appeared on behalf of Defendants Debra Jacquez, Shelly Kruse,

Gwendolyn Mitchell, Sampath K. Suryadevera, M.D., and Juan Jose

Tur, M.D.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiffs’ Statement.

1. Plaintiffs Ms. Scott, Ms. Boyce, and Ms. Holmes were

prisoners at Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”). They

allege that the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”)/

CCWF and its employees or agents sent them to Madera Community

Hospital (“MCH”) for an unnecessary surgery. Plaintiffs

requested and were denied non-surgical treatment to treat boils

in each of their arm pit regions. Despite being notified of Dr.

Anwar’s injuries to other CCWF prisoners, the CDCR Defendants

sent Plaintiffs to Dr. Anwar for surgery. Plaintiffs received

invasive improper treatment from Dr. Anwar and MCH. The surgery

left Plaintiffs with limited mobility, flexibility, sensation and

pain in their arms.

2. Plaintiffs allege that each of the Defendants exhibited

a deliberate indifference to their medical needs by subjecting

them to unnecessary surgery that mutilated their bodies and

caused severe and permanent disfigurement and disability. 

Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants’ actions constitute

cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs additionally contend

that subjecting Plaintiffs to the surgical treatment without

their informed consent and performing surgery far more invasive

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 19
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

than necessary or proper without apprising them of the risks of

surgery constitutes battery.

3. Plaintiffs also contend that each of the Defendants

intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiffs that dermatological

care was not appropriate, that surgery was the only treatment

option available, and that the intended surgery was less

extensive and less serious than it actually was. Additionally,

Defendants’ directive that Plaintiffs receive surgery from Dr.

Anwar and their permission allowing Dr. Anwar to perform the same

surgery that resulted in disastrous consequences to other inmates

constituted extreme and outrageous conduct, and caused Plaintiffs

to suffer emotional distress. Plaintiffs further allege that Dr.

Anwar, Dr. Suryadevara, Dr. Tur, and MCH committed medical

negligence by breaching their duty of care to Plaintiffs by

either injuring them or failing to use the knowledge, skill and

care ordinarily exercised by members of the relevant community. 

Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) compensatory damages

including but not limited to lost wages, future wages, and

emotional distress, and (2) attorneys’ fees and costs. In

addition, Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint to include a

claim for punitive damages at the appropriate time.

Defendant, Madera Community Hospital’s, Statement.

4. First, MCH denies, disputes and disagrees with the

claims and allegations made by each of the three Plaintiffs in

both their Third Amended Complaint for Damages [Doc. #77] and as

set forth by Plaintiffs within this Report. The information

contained within MCH’s Answer to this Third Amended Complaint

[Doc. #78] is incorporated herein by reference.

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 19
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

5. Second, MCH contends that no action, inaction, error,

omission or conduct on the part of any nurse, staff or other

personnel fell below the applicable standard of care. In

addition, MCH contends that no action, inaction, error, omission

or conduct on the part of any nurse, employee, staff or other

personnel was a proximate legal cause to the injuries/damages now

being alleged by any of the three Plaintiffs.

6. Third, the claims against MCH fail to describe and/or

identify any specific conduct on the part of the nurses,

employees, staff and personnel of MCH that constitutes either

medical malpractice, civil rights violations, constitutional

violations, misrepresentation or any other alleged wrongdoing by

MCH.

7. Fourth, MCH has no reason to think that any other

Defendant, person or entity acted below the applicable standard

of care with respect to treatment and care provided to each

Plaintiff. In addition, MCH has no reason to think that any

other Defendant, person or entity was a proximate cause of harm

to any of the three Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, any claims of

negligence, malpractice, civil rights violations, constitutional

violations, civil battery, misrepresentations and/or intentional

torts against Dr. Anwar, any other Defendant, person, entity or

any other medical doctor cannot be imputed onto MCH as neither

Dr. Anwar nor any of the other named Defendants and other

physicians involved in the Plaintiffs’ care were all independent

contractors of MCH and not their employees or under their

control. The true relationship between MCH and physicians, such

as Dr. Anwar, are spelled out for the Plaintiffs in each of the

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 19
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

admission and consent paperwork signed by each of the three

Plaintiffs. 

8. Fifth, MCH was not on notice of any of the alleged

conduct and/or wrongdoing described by the three Plaintiffs in

their current Complaint for damages [Doc. #77].

9. Sixth, Plaintiffs’ claims are limited, and/or reduced,

by MICRA and the contributory negligence of others and the

comparative fault/assumption of the risk of each Plaintiff and

other affirmative defenses as referenced in MCH’s Answer [Doc.

#78].

10. Seventh, MCH did not violate any constitutional or

civil rights of any of the three named Plaintiffs in this action.

11. Eighth, MCH properly, reasonably and in good faith,

granted and renewed the Medical Staff privileges for Dr. Anwar. 

MCH adequately investigated Dr. Anwar’s application for Staff

privileges, adequately investigated any complaints/claims it was

aware of regarding Dr. Anwar and therefore, MCH’s conduct did not

manifest a “conscious disregard” of each of Plaintiff’s rights,

safety and interests. MCH did not know, nor should it have been

expected to know, about the alleged wrongdoing, negligence and

malfeasance purportedly committed by Dr. Anwar. 

Defendant Muhamman Anwar, M.D.’s Statement.

12. Dr. Anwar denies each of Plaintiffs’ Genea Scott,

Regina Boyce and Julie Holmes’ claims and allegations as set

forth in this report and in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. 

13. Dr. Anwar contends that at no time did he act with

intent to harm or with deliberate indifference to any of the

Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs.

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 5 of 19
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

6

14. Dr. Anwar contends that the surgical treatment he

provided to each of the three Plaintiffs was appropriate,

warranted and complied with the standard of care, and that Dr.

Anwar possessed and used the knowledge, skill and care ordinarily

exercised by members of the relevant community.

15. Dr. Anwar contends that he appropriately advised each

of the three Plaintiffs of all material information including the

risks and benefits of surgical treatment for each of their

conditions, and that each Plaintiff, being fully informed,

consented to such treatment.

16. Dr. Anwar contends that he is not liable for

Plaintiffs’ alleged damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1714.8,

because Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, are the natural or

expected result of reasonable treatment rendered for each

Plaintiff’s disease or condition.

17. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited by MICRA, and the

comparative negligence of each of the Plaintiffs.

18. Dr. Anwar’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Complaint [Doc. #79] sets forth additional denials and

applicable affirmative defenses, and is incorporated herein by

reference.

Defendants Debra Jacquez and Gwendolyn Mitchell’s Statement.

19. Defendants deny each of Plaintiffs Scott, Boyce, and

Holmes’ claims and allegations as set forth in this report and in

their Third Amended Complaint, and incorporate by reference their

answer, and the affirmative defenses therein, to Plaintiffs Third

Amended Complaint. Defendants deny that as Wardens of CCWF they

had a duty or responsibility to provide medical care to

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 6 of 19
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

7

Plaintiffs or to oversee the medical care provided to Plaintiffs. 

Defendants deny they caused any Plaintiff any harm or injury;

that they had any knowledge that Dr. Anwar engaged in misconduct

that constituted a substantial risk of harm and/or deliberate

indifference associated with his treatment of CDCR inmates; deny

that they consciously disregarded any Plaintiff’s safety or

health and deny that their actions or omissions constituted

deliberate indifference to any Plaintiff’s serious medical need,

of one even existed; deny that their actions and omissions

constituted a violation of any Plaintiff’s civil rights; deny

that they violated state law in any way, deny any Plaintiff has

sustained any personal injury or harm as alleged, and deny that

any Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Defendants further assert

that Plaintiffs Boyce and Holmes failed to exhaust their

administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. 

Plaintiffs’ claims are limited by MICRA and the comparative

negligence of each Plaintiff. 

Defendant, Sampath Suryadevara, M.D.’s (“Suryadevara”)

Statement.

20. Defendant denies each of Plaintiffs Scott, Boyce, and

Holmes’ claims and allegations as set forth in this report and in

their Third Amended Complaint, and incorporate by reference their

answer, and the affirmative defenses therein, to Plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint. Suryadevara denies that he has caused

Plaintiffs any injury or harm whatsoever; denies that he referred

inmates to Anwar with knowledge of any misconduct or mistreatment

of inmates by Anwar; denies he made any misrepresentations to

Plaintiffs at any time; denies that his actions or omissions

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 7 of 19
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

8

constituted professional negligence; denies that his actions or

omissions constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’

serious medical needs, if any there were; denies that his actions

or omissions constituted a violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights;

denies that Plaintiffs have sustained any personal injury or

other harm as alleged; and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to

any relief.

21. Defendant further asserts that Plaintiffs Boyce and

Holmes failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to

filing this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited by MICRA and

the comparative negligence of each Plaintiff. 

Defendant, Juan Jose Tur, M.D. (“Tur”) and Shelly Kruse,

M.D.’s Statement.

22. Defendants deny each of Plaintiffs Scott, Boyce, and

Holmes’ claims and allegations as set forth in this report and in

their Third Amended Complaint, and incorporate by reference their

answer, and the affirmative defenses therein, to Plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint.

23. Defendants Tur and Kruse deny that they caused

Plaintiffs any injury or harm whatsoever; deny that they referred

inmates to Anwar with knowledge of any misconduct or mistreatment

of inmates by Anwar; deny that they made any misrepresentations

to Plaintiffs at any time; deny that their actions or omissions

constituted professional negligence; deny that their actions or

omissions constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’

serious medical needs, if any there were; deny that their actions

or omissions constituted a violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights;

deny that any Plaintiff has sustained any personal injury or

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 8 of 19
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

9

other harm as alleged; and deny that any Plaintiff is entitled to

any relief. Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs Boyce and

Holmes failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to

filing this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited by MICRA and

the comparative negligence of each Plaintiff. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to amend their

complaint to include a claim for punitive damages at the

appropriate time. Any such motion shall be filed within 120

days, which would be on or before July 28, 2008. With this

exception, the parties do not contemplate other amendments to the

pleadings. Plaintiffs reserve the right to add parties and amend

pleadings as information is learned through discovery. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Each individual Plaintiff was a prisoner at CCWF,

Chowchilla, California, at all times alleged in the Complaint. 

2. Each Plaintiff was at all times alleged in the

Complaint a citizen of the United States.

3. Dr. Anwar performed surgery at MCH on Plaintiff

Genea Scott on July 6, 2005, on Plaintiff Regina Boyce on October

7, 2003, and on Plaintiff Julie Holmes on May 4, 2005. 

4. MCH provides medical care in Madera County,

California.

5. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Dr. Anwar

is and was a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State

of California and admitted to full privileges at MCH at the times

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 9 of 19
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

10

he provided care and treatment to each Plaintiff.

6. A contract existed between MCH and the CDCR, not a

party to this litigation, to provide hospital services for CCWF

inmates.

7. A series of contracts was negotiated between the

CDCR and Madera Multi-Specialty Group (“MMSG”), a medical group

of which Dr. Anwar is a member, under which the CDCR agreed to

pay fees for medical care and treatment, including but not

limited to, surgical treatment provided to CDCR inmates.

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts are contested. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Federal Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. Plaintiffs

further invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. This case has been consolidated for discovery

purposes only, with Brenda Allen v. Jeanne Woodford, et al.,

1:05-cv-01104 OWW. The Court has deferred ruling as to whether

these cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including

trial. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Plaintiffs have a cognizable claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2. Whether any civil battery exists under the facts

alleged. 

3. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 10 of 19
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

11

violated.

4. Whether any Defendant made any intentional

misrepresentations.

5. Whether any Defendant intentionally inflicted

emotional distress on any Plaintiff, and whether any Plaintiff

experienced any emotional distress. 

6. Whether or not any licensed professional engaged

in professional negligence.

7. Whether or not the breach of any duty or violation

of any standard of care or law caused injury to any Plaintiff.

8. The nature and extent of damages, if any.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Dispute.

1. Specifically, the CDCR Defendants contend that they

have no responsive documents because such documents, while they

do exist, are technically the property of the State. According

to the CDCR Defendants, the State has not authorized them to

produce responsive documents, and therefore they have not been

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 11 of 19
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

12

produced. On January 30, 2007, in response to Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel in Brenda Allen v. Jeanne Woodford, et al., Case No.

1:05-cv-1104 OWW GSA, the Court ordered CDCR Defendants to

provide declarations saying who has responsive documents. 

Plaintiff in Brenda Allen subsequently served the third parties

identified in those declarations with subpoenas. Production was

set for September 21, 2007, per the Court’s Order. On September

21, 2007, Plaintiff in Brenda Allen received 68 pages of

objections to each and every one of its requests for documents. 

No documents were produced. The third parties did not deny that

they had responsive materials, but rather contended they could

not be compelled to produce documents because they are the

property of the State of California which has not consented to

their production. Plaintiff in Brenda Allen filed a Motion to

Compel on December 13, 2007, and the Court granted the Motion on

February 20, 2008. Still, the third parties have not produced

any documents. 

2. To date, the CDCR Defendants have provided no

responsive documents regarding Dr. Anwar’s performance, the

CDCR’s investigation into Dr. Anwar’s performance, the CDCR’s

decision to terminate Dr. Anwar, or other complaints regarding

Dr. Anwar’s performance. Plaintiffs contend that until the

Defendants and Third Parties fully cooperate with Plaintiffs’

discovery requests, it is premature to set any further discovery

dates. However, with the full cooperation of the Defendants and

Third Parties, Plaintiffs hope to close all discovery by May 22,

2009. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 12 of 19
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

13

X. Status of Matters Before the Court. 

1. The parties agree that to the extent that any documents

are produced in the Allen case, that those documents shall be

useable in this case with the same force and effect. 

XI. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before January 9, 2009.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before February 27, 2009. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before March 30, 2009. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or

before May 8, 2009.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

XII. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 13 of 19
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

14

discovery motions, will be filed on or before May 22, 2009, and

heard on June 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Gary

S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than June 9, 2009, and will be heard on July 13,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XIII. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. August 17, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XIV. Trial Date.

1. September 29, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 14 of 19
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

15

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 20 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XV. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for June 4, 2009,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary S.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 15 of 19
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

16

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XVI. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. Plaintiffs’ position is that this trial should not be

bifurcated or severed. 

2. All Defendants reserve the right to move the Court for

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 16 of 19
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

17

bifurcation of issues for trial, under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 42(b), to have the issue(s) of alleged

professional negligence/lack of informed consent tried first to

the jury, separate from any and all other claims. All Defendants

further reserve their respective rights to move for severance,

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21, to have each

Plaintiffs’ individual lawsuit heard separately via independent

trials. Defendants’ position is that grounds for bifurcation and

severance would promote judicial economy, lessen the risk of

confusing the jury, would not prejudice any party, and would

avoid substantial prejudice to the Defendants.

3. In the event that punitive damages are an issue in this

case, the amount, if any, of punitive damages shall be tried in a

separate phase in a continuous trial before the same jury, only

after liability, compensatory damages, and the right to punitive

damages is first established. 

XVII. Related Matters Pending.

1. Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the present

case with Brenda Allen v. Jeanne Woodford, et al., Case NO. 1:05-

cv-1104 OWW GSA, noting that this matter and that case share many

of the same parties, are based on similar claims, and both

actions involve similar questions of fact and law. On December

26, 2006, the Court granted the motion to consolidate for the

purposes of discovery, without prejudice to later consolidations

for all purposes. 

XVIII. Other Matters.

1. Defendants each reserve their respective right to

request that Plaintiffs submit to an independent medical

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 17 of 19
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

18

examination. Plaintiffs reserve their right to oppose any motion

moving the Court to order such examination and ask the Court to

order that the CCWF not do any further examinations on Plaintiffs

for the purposes of investigation. At this time, the parties are

not aware of any other matter affecting the status of the case.

XIX. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XX. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 18 of 19
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

19

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 96 Filed 03/28/08 Page 19 of 19