Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00363-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 23:134 P.I.- Auto Negligence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD KOPAL, et al.,

No. CIV S-05-363-DFL-JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

MARTEN TRANSPORT, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED COMPLAINT-ININTERVENTION

____________________________/

Pursuant to court order, a Pretrial Conference was held on

May 22, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Suzanne M. Trimble, Esq. appeared as

counsel for plaintiff in intervention, Stevens Transport, Inc.,

and Kevin J. Gray, Esq. appeared for defendants Marten

Transport, Ltd. and Leslie D. Bigby. After hearing, the court

makes the following findings and orders:

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, 

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 15
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

2

and has previously been found to be proper by order of this

court, as has venue. Those orders are confirmed.

II. JURY/NON-JURY

The case will be tried to a jury of nine. 

III. STATEMENT TO BE READ TO JURY

Seven days prior to trial the parties shall submit a joint

statement of the case that may be read to the jury at the

beginning of jury selection.

IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS

On March 8, 2003, while in the process of parking a

tractor-trailer owned by defendant Marten Transportation in a

parking space at the Flying J Truckstop in Ripon, California,

defendant Leslie D. Bibgy backed his tractor-trailer into the

tractor-trailer owned by Stevens Transport, Inc. The tractortrailer owned by Stevens Transport, Inc. was parked in a space

at the Flying J Truckstop. Plaintiff Ronald Kopal was in the

tractor-trailer owned by Stevens Transport, Inc.

Plaintiff in intervention Stevens Transport, Inc. has paid

benefits to and on behalf of its employee as a result of the

incident. 

The undisputed facts may be treated as stipulations.

V. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

Plaintiff claims that the force of the collision caused

plaintiff Ronald Kopal to fall out of the upper sleeper berth of

the tractor-trailer injuring himself. Plaintiff alleges that as

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 15
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

3

a result of this fall, plaintiff Ronald Kopal suffered injuries

to his neck and shoulder and subsequently required neck and

right shoulder surgery. 

Defendants dispute these allegations and claim that the

force of the impact was not great enough to cause plaintiff

Ronald Kopal to fall from the sleeper berth, or cause him any

injury.

Further, defendants dispute the monetary claims of

plaintiff in intervention, asserting that sums paid to or on

behalf of plaintiff Ronald Kopal were not paid for accidentrelated reasons.

VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Defendants intend to bring the following motion: 

Motion to bifurcate liability and damages portions of the

trial.

Plaintiff in intervention intends to bring the following

motion: 

Motion in limine under Daubert v. Merrell Down

Pharmaradicals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to exclude any

biomechanical opinions by Daniel S. Girvan on the grounds he is

not qualified.

VII. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff in intervention Stevens Transport, Inc. seeks

reimbursement for all monetary benefits paid to or on behalf of

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 15
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

4

its employee Ronald Kopal as a consequence of the accident.

VIII. POINTS OF LAW

The parties shall brief the following points of law in

their trial briefs: Elements of Stevens' claim for reimbursement

and any affirmative defenses. 

The parties are free to brief any additional points of law

necessary for resolution at trial.

Trial briefs shall be filed with the court no later than

seven(7) days prior to the date of trial. 

IX. ABANDONED ISSUES

1. The general damage claims of plaintiff Ronald Kopal as

damages to be recovered by him.

2. The entirety of all claims brought by plaintiff

Lisa Kopal. 

X. WITNESSES

Plaintiff in intervention intends to call the following

witnesses at trial:

William Tallent

Ronald Kopal

Charles Lovelace, M.D.

John Teig Port, M.D.

Pierre Herding, M.D.

Charles D. Mitchell, M.D.

David E. Ostrow, M.D.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 15
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

5

Alfred Bugbee

William P. Duffy, M.D.

Jonathan S. Katz, M.D.

Gary T. Moran Ph.D.

Bernie Louis McCaskill, M.D. 

Leslie D. Bigby

Dr. Joel Holliday.

Dr. Sam Kokoris.

Dr. B. Carmona.

Dr. Daniel Dow.

Dr. Harold Wagner.

Dr. Rerb Sol Ellman.

Dr. Abdallah Adham.

Dr. Alfonso Cardenas.

Dr. Yuri Lemeshev.

Dr. Abraham Abdo.

Dr. Jonathan Chrest.

Dr. Ahmed Elsehety.

Dr. Basim Jishi.

Dr. Steve Thompson.

Dr. Norvia Parr.

Dr. Randall Askins.

Dr. Randolf Leone.

Dr. Jack Nylund.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 15
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

6

Dr. Dale Fisher.

Dr. Leonard Nadalo.

Dr. Richard Aldridge.

Dr. Bo Wang.

Dr. Ikechukwu Wsuji.

Dr. Richard Allison.

Dr. Robert Edmunson.

Dr. Gary King.

Dr. Pal Mathai.

Dr. Carla Anderson.

Dr. J. Cooper McKee.

Dr. Sidd Lo Zakaria.

Dr. Michael Carrol.

Dr. Elizabeth Eversull.

Dr. Butfi Basatnch.

Dr. Alfonso Cardenas.

Defendant anticipates calling the following witnesses: 

Ronald Kopal

Lisa Kopal

Leslie D. Bigby

Patricia Bigby

Charles Lovelace, M.D.

John Teig Port, M.D.

Pierre Herding, M.D.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 6 of 15
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

7

Charles D. Mitchell, M.D.

David E. Ostrow, M.D.

Alfred Bugbee

Dharampal S. Johal, M.D.

William C. Bergman, M.D.

Robert Z. Bruckman, M.D.

Daniel S. Girvan

Each party may call a witness designated by the other.

A. No other witnesses will be permitted to testify

unless:

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that

the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

(2) The witness was discovered after the Pretrial

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required

in "B" below.

B. Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of witnesses, the

attorney shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of

the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may

consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to

testify. The evidence will not be permitted unless:

(1) The witnesses could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to Pretrial;

(2) The court and opposing counsel were promptly

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 7 of 15
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

8

notified upon discovery of the witnesses;

(3) If time permitted, counsel proffered the

witnesses for deposition;

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of

the witnesses' testimony was provided opposing counsel.

XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

Plaintiff in intervention intends to offer the following

exhibits: 

1. Photographs of interior of cab showing plaintiff's

position at various times.

2. Photographs of damage to truck from accident.

3. Incident report.

4. Summary of medical bills.

5. Medical treatment chart showing history of treatment.

6. Videotape of truck in motion.

7. Tape recording at independent medical examination by

Dr. William C. Bergman and transcript of same.

8. Tape of independent medical examination by Dr. Robert

Z. Bruckman and transcript of same.

9. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. Charles Lovelace.

10. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. John Teig Port.

11. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. Pierre Herding.

12. Videotaped deposition of Dr. Charles D. Mitchell.

13. Videotaped deposition of Dr. David E. Ostrow.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 8 of 15
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

9

14. Wage loss material, including W-2's produced by

Stevens Transport, Inc.

15. Diagram of accident prepared by plaintiff.

16. All medical bills presented to plaintiff in

intervention for payment, and all documents indicating payment

by plaintiff in intervention.

17. All documents indicating payment of disability wages

by plaintiff in intervention to plaintiff Ronald Kopal.

Defendant intends to introduce the following exhibits: 

A. Blow-ups of diagrams attached to the report of Daniel

S. Girvan.

B. Photographs of damage to Stevens' Transportation's

tractor-trailer.

C. Plaintiff Ronald Kopal's medical records.

D. Transcript of Ronald Kopal's deposition.

E. Transcript of Lisa Kopal's deposition.

F. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. Charles Lovelace.

G. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. John Teig Port.

H. Videotaped oral deposition of Dr. Pierre Herding.

I. Videotaped deposition of Dr. Charles D. Mitchell.

J. Videotaped deposition of Dr. David E. Ostrow.

K. Plaintiff Ronald Kopal's employment records.

L. Transcript of Dharampal S. Johal, M.D.'s deposition.

M. Transcript of William C. Bergman, M.D.'s deposition.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 9 of 15
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

10

N. Transcript of Robert Z. Bruckman, M.D.'s deposition.

O. Transcript of Daniel S. Girvan's deposition. 

Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other. 

A. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

unless:

(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates

that the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which

could not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference,

or

(2) The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required

in paragraph "B," below.

B. Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of exhibits, the

attorneys shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel

of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider

at trial their admissibility. The exhibits will not be received

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to Pretrial;

(2) The court and counsel were promptly informed of

their existence;

(3) Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if

physically possible) to opposing counsel. If the exhibit(s) may

not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 10 of 15
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

11

the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing

counsel.

As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange

copies of the exhibit not later than fifteen (15) days from the

date of this Pretrial Order. Each party is then granted ten

(10) days to object to the exhibit. In making the objection,

the party is to set forth the grounds for the objection. The

objections shall be served within 10 days and then filed within

a reasonable time at least 7 days prior to trial. The attorney

for each party is directed to appear before and present an

original and one (1) copy of said exhibit to Harry Vine, Deputy

Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30 a.m. on the date set for trial or at

such earlier time as may be agreed upon. As to each exhibit

which is not objected to, it shall be marked and may be received

into evidence on motion and will require no further foundation. 

Each exhibit which is objected to will be marked for

identification only.

XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff intends to offer at trial (1) defendants

responses to discovery and (2) the videotaped trial preservation

deposition testimony of Charles Lovelace, M.D., John Teig Port,

M.D., Pierre Herding, M.D., Charles D. Mitchell, M.D., David E.

Ostrow, M.D.

Defendants intend to offer at trial the (1) plaintiffs'

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 11 of 15
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

12

responses to defendants interrogatories; (2) the videotaped

trial preservation deposition testimony of Charles Lovelace,

M.D., John Teig Port, M.D., Pierre Herding, M.D., Charles D.

Mitchell, M.D., David E. Ostrow, M.D., (3) deposition testimony

of plaintiff Ronald Kopal and (4) depositions of all other

witnesses not available at trial.

Plaintiff in intervention intends to offer at trial (1)

defendants responses to discovery and (2) plaintiffs' responses

to discovery and (3) the videotaped trial preservation

deposition testimony of Charles Lovelace, M.D., John Teig Port,

M.D., Pierre Herding, M.D., Charles D. Mitchell, M.D., David E.

Ostrow, M.D., deposition testimony of plaintiff Ronald Kopal,

and depositions of all other witnesses not available at trial. 

XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Pursuant to the court's Status Conference Order, all

discovery and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to

be completed as of the date of the Pretrial Conference. That

order is confirmed. The parties are free to do anything they

desire pursuant to informal agreement. However, any such

agreement will not be enforceable in this court.

XIV. STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulate that neither will show anything

to the jury in opening statements without prior review by

opposing counsel and approval of the court.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 12 of 15
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

13

XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

The parties do not request leave to amend their pleadings.

XVI. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION

A. Counsel are directed to Local Rule 16-285 regarding

the contents of trial briefs. Such briefs should be filed seven

(7) days prior to trial. 

B. Counsel are further directed to confer and to attempt

to agree upon a joint set of jury instructions. The joint set

of instructions shall be lodged with the court clerk seven (7)

calendar days prior to the date of the trial and shall be

identified as the "Jury Instructions Without Objection." As to

instructions as to which there is dispute the parties shall

submit the instruction(s) as its package of proposed jury

instructions the first day of trial. 

The parties are requested to submit a disc of all proposed

jury instructions in word perfect 8.0. 

C. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any

deposition which is to be used at trial has been filed with the

Clerk of the Court. Counsel are cautioned that a failure to

discharge this duty may result in the court precluding use of

the deposition or imposition of such other sanctions as the

court deems appropriate.

D. The parties are ordered to file with the court and

exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 13 of 15
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

14

the trial a statement designating portions of depositions

intended to be offered or read into evidence (except for

portions to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).

E. The parties are ordered to file with the court and

exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before

trial the portions of Answers to Interrogatories which the

respective parties intend to offer or read into evidence at the

trial (except portions to be used only for impeachment or

rebuttal).

F. Each party may submit proposed voir dire questions the

party would like the court to put to prospective jurors during

jury selection. Proposed voir dire should be submitted one (1)

week prior to trial. The court will permit each side 10 minutes

of supplemental voir dire. 

XVII. AGREED STATEMENTS

Presentation of all or part of the action upon an agreed

statement of facts is not feasible.

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

Defendants reserve the right to move to bifurcate the issue

of liability from damages.

XIX. ATTORNEYS' FEES

The matter of the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing

parties pursuant to statute will be handled by motion in

accordance with Local Rule 54-293.

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 14 of 15
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

15

XX. EXPERTS

Stevens may call treating doctors as expert witnesses if

those doctors were listed on its pre-complaint disclosure and if

any opinion, sought to be introduced at trial, has been the

subject of deposition testimony. 

XXI. SCHEDULING OF PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

The parties shall file all pre-trial motions by June 15,

2007. Opposition shall be filed by June 29, 2007. Any reply

shall be filed by July 20, 2007. The motions shall be hear on

August 21, 2007 at 9 a.m. The pre-trial motions subject to this

schedule include any in limine motions, any motion under

Daubert, defendants' motion to bifurcate, and Stevens' motion

for application of the Labor Code 3852 presumption. 

XXII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Each party is granted seven (7) days from the date of this

Pretrial Order to object to it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00363-JAM -JFM Document 52 Filed 05/24/07 Page 15 of 15