Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00626/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

1 

15cv626-JAH(BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ADRIANA CARMONA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv626-JAH(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

EXTENDING BY 14 DAYS SAN DIEGO 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT’S 

TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS 

AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 

ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF 

ADRIANA CARMONA’S TIME TO 

PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS 

 

[ECF Nos. 26 & 28] 

On March 2, 2015, Defendant San Diego Community College District (“SDCCD”) filed an 

“EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING BY 14 DAYS SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT’S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS.” ECF No. 26. Defendant SDCCD 

seeks a two week continuance of the March 4, 2016 deadline for serving its expert reports. Id. 

Case 3:15-cv-00626-JAH-BLM Document 31 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

15cv626-JAH(BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

at 1. In support, Defendant SDCCD states that it came into the case late and only recently filed 

its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Id. In further support, Defendant SDCCD states that 

discovery does not close until May 6, 2016 and that due to a trial that lasted five weeks and just 

concluded on March 1, 2016, its lead counsel was unable to ensure that the expert reports were 

properly prepared. Id. at 2. Defendant SDCCD argues that the other parties will not be 

prejudiced if the request is granted and that if it is denied, it will suffer “irreparable harm” as it 

will be unable to present expert opinions at trial. Id. Defendant SDCCD notes that Defendants 

Augustin Loeza and the United States of America (“USA”) have stipulated to the requested 

extension. Id.; see also ECF No 26-1, Declaration of Ljubisa Kostic at 2; and ECF No. 26-2, 

Stipulation to Extend Defendant San Diego Community College District’s Time to Provide Expert 

Reports. Finally, Defendant SDCCD states that it made several attempts to contact Plaintiff’s 

counsel (Messrs. Leonard Burgess and Douglas Gilliland) via email and telephone without 

success. ECF No. 26 at 2; see also ECF No 26-1, Declaration of Ljubisa Kostic at 2-3. 

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING 

PLAINTIFF ADRIANA CARMONA’S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS.” ECF No. 28. Plaintiff 

also seeks to extend the date by which she is required to serve her expert reports by two weeks 

to March 18, 2016. Id. In support, Plaintiff states that her lead counsel who was in charge of 

coordinating all expert issues, Mr. Burgess, was hospitalized last week and admitted to the 

Intensive Care Unit where he remains today. Id.; see also ECF No. 28-1, Declaration of Douglas 

S. Gillian. 

On March 4, 2016, Defendant USA filed an “OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS.” 

Case 3:15-cv-00626-JAH-BLM Document 31 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

15cv626-JAH(BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ECF No. 29. Defendant USA opposes Plaintiff’s request to continue the expert report deadline. 

Id. at 1. In support, Defendant USA states that despite being ordered to designate experts by 

January 22, 2016, Plaintiff has failed to designate any experts at all. Id. at 2. Accordingly, 

Defendant USA did not have any notice of Plaintiff’s experts and was unable “to identify and 

retain the requisite rebuttal experts.” Id. Because of the lack of designation, Defendant USA 

opposes Plaintiff’s request to extend the date to disclose expert reports. Id. 

Good cause appearing, Defendant SDCCD’s ex parte motion [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED

as follows: By March 18, 2016, Defendant SDCCD shall comply with the disclosure provisions 

in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All other dates and deadlines 

remain as previously set. ECF No. 12. 

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion [ECF No. 28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Given 

Defendant USA’s allegations, an ex parte motion on this issue is inappropriate. Plaintiff may 

contact the Court for a hearing date and file a properly noticed motion for the Court’s 

consideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/4/2016 

Case 3:15-cv-00626-JAH-BLM Document 31 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3