Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00576/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00576-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEVLAND,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C04-00576 MJJ

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

Before the Court are several discovery disputes in this matter raised by several letters

submitted to the Court. (Docket Nos. 209, 210, 211.)

A. Plaintiff’s Request To Designate Additional Liability Expert.

The Court has reviewed Dr. Kelkar’s April 9, 2007 supplemental expert report (Docket No.

209, Exh. 1) and finds that it contains new opinions on issues which Dr. Kelkar previously testified

in deposition that he had not yet analyzed. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s request to designate Dr. Der Avanessian as a liability expert. The Court hereby

ORDERS Plaintiff to serve Defendant with a copy of Dr. Der Avanessian’s expert report by

Thursday, June 14, 2007. The Court also AMENDS the Sixth Pretrial Order to extend the time for

Defendants to take Dr. Der Avanessian’s deposition until June 29, 2007. The parties shall promptly

meet-and-confer to agree upon a date for Dr. Der Avanessian’s deposition.

//

Case 3:04-cv-00576-WHA Document 212 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

B. Plaintiff’s Request To Depose Certain Of Defendant’s Experts Beyond The

Discovery Cutoff.

 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s letter request (Docket No. 210) for leave to depose certain

of Defendant’s experts – Drs. Kelkar, Hall, and Levy – beyond the June 16, 2007 discovery cutoff. 

Plaintiff has adequately established good cause for relief from the discovery cutoff with

respect to Dr. Kelkar based on difficulties in scheduling his deposition. Good cause appearing

therefor, the Court AMENDS the Sixth Pretrial Order to extend the cutoff for Plaintiff to take Dr.

Kelkar’s deposition until June 29, 2007. 

With respect to Drs. Hill and Levy, to the extent that Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request

for leave to conduct three additional hours of questioning each for these doctors, Defendants shall

file a letter brief limited to two (2) pages setting forth the reasons for their opposition no later than

noon on Friday, June 15, 2007, at which point the matter will be deemed submitted. Defendants’

opposition, if any, shall specifically address the status of the document production in response to the

subpoenas served on these witnesses and whether the timing and nature of that production justifies

Plaintiffs’ request for relief.

C. Dispute Regarding Mr. Aloan’s File. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s letter (Docket No. 211) regarding a dispute that arose

earlier today regarding the production of the file of Thomas Aloan, the investigator retained by the

government to conduct surveillance on Plaintiff. The Court considers it imprudent to grant the type

of relief requested – production of documents for which the government may have an assertion of

privilege – without providing an adequate opportunity for Defendant to advise the Court of its

position in writing. Accordingly, Defendants SHALL file, no later than noon on Friday, June 15,

2007, a letter brief limited to two (2) pages addressing Defendant’s apparent reversal of position and

decision to fly the file to San Francisco for a privilege review, at which point the Court will deem

the matter submitted. To the extent that the Court determines either that the privilege review could

have been conducted in a manner not disruptive to the parties’ ability to resume Mr. Aloan’s

deposition this week, or that Defendant’s conduct amounts to tactical gamesmanship in light of the

looming discovery cutoff, the Court will consider appropriate sanctions, including costs of resuming

Case 3:04-cv-00576-WHA Document 212 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the deposition and/or evidentiary sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/13/07 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00576-WHA Document 212 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3