Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02077/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30104 Marine Personal Injury - Jones Act

---

1

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUSTIN B. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

(ECF Nos. 55, 56)

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIM.

Presently before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute

in which Defendants United States of America (“United States”), Systems Applications 

and Technologies, Inc. (“SA-TECH”), and Cardinal Point Captains, Inc. (“Cardinal”) 

(collectively “Defendants”) move to continue all pretrial deadlines and amend the 

Scheduling Order issued in this case. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) Plaintiff Dustin B. Daniels 

(“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. (Id.) After reviewing the Joint Motion and its 

attachments, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to amend, as set 

forth below.

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

I. BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Seaman’s 

Complaint for Damages for Personal Injuries and for Maintenance and Cure against the 

United States. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), the 

operative complaint, against the United States, SA-TECH, and Cardinal on August 21, 

2017. (ECF No. 46.) On September 5, 2017, the United States filed a Cross-Claim against 

Cardinal. (ECF No. 53.)

In the TAC, Plaintiff alleges he suffered personal injuries, including crush injuries 

and a fracture to his left leg, on or about August 19, 2014, while employed by Cardinal and

serving as a member of the crew aboard a public vessel owned and/or controlled by the 

United States, and manned and/or controlled through Cardinal and SA-TECH. (ECF No. 

46 at ¶¶ 7-9.) Alleging causation, Plaintiff brings claims of Unseaworthiness, Jones Act 

Negligence, General Maritime Negligence, and Maintenance and Cure against the United 

States, SA-TECH, and/or Cardinal. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-22.) In his Prayer for Judgment, Plaintiff 

seeks, among other things, general damages, special damages (including future medical 

expenses, loss of wages, and loss of earning capacity), maintenance and cure, and 

consequential damages. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

The Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on March 22, 2017. (ECF 

No. 24.) The case did not settle. (Id.) However, as the parties expressed an interest in 

continuing settlement discussions, the Court ordered the parties to exchange available 

medical information, and set follow-up Status Conferences. (See ECF Nos. 26, 31.) On 

July 28, 2017, the Court held a second Status Conference. (ECF No. 43.) At the 

conference, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff needed to undergo further medical 

testing before settlement discussions may continue. (Id.) On August 28, 2017, the Court

held a Case Management Conference and issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 50.) 

In August 2017, Plaintiff underwent an MRI authorized by Cardinal. (ECF No. 55-

8 at ¶ 3.) Based on the MRI results, Plaintiff’s primary care doctor recommended that he 

be seen by an ankle specialist for surgery. (Id.) The surgery was authorized on November 

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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, 2017, and took place on December 28, 2017. (Id.; see also ECF No. 55-9 at ¶ 2.) 

Plaintiff was informed by his surgeon that he will need three months to recover from 

his surgery and return to work. (ECF No. 55-9 at ¶ 2.) Defendants’ expert, Steven N. 

Copp, M.D., an ankle orthopedic specialist and Defendants’ retained expert, declares that 

based on his experience as an orthopedic surgeon, with a specialty in ankle reconstructive 

surgery, Plaintiff’s surgery requires four to six months to recover. (ECF No. 55-2 at ¶¶ 2-

4.) Dr. Copp states that this is “particularly true for a recovery sufficient to allow someone 

to engage in manual labor activity on or aboard uneven surfaces particularly with frequent 

movement of the standing surface requiring accommodation by the foot and ankle.” (Id. 

at ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff claims that he is currently unable to work at all, and that he is 

presently going to college and trying to re-train for new, light work. (ECF Nos. 55 at 9-

10; 55-9 at ¶ 3.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). A court’s 

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 

of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 

advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)) (citations omitted). “Although the 

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 

reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Gestetner Corp. v. 

Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). “If that party was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end.” Id. The party seeking to continue or extend the deadlines bears the 

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

burden of proving good cause. See Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087; Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-

09.

B. Analysis

In the Joint Motion, Defendants seek a five (5) month extension of all pretrial 

deadlines, arguing that Plaintiff’s recovery from surgery needs to be complete before they 

can take his deposition and properly evaluate the potential damages. (ECF No. 55 at 4.) 

Defendants request that fact discovery be completed approximately seven (7) months after 

Plaintiff’s surgery, and expert discovery be completed approximately eight (8) months after 

Plaintiff’s surgery. (Id. at 8.) Defendants seek an extension of all other dates accordingly, 

including a Pretrial Conference date in March 2019. (Id. at 9.)

In response, Plaintiff argues that he would be greatly prejudiced by any unnecessary 

delay. (Id. at 12; see also ECF No. 55-9 at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff is married, the father of a young 

baby and a four year old child, and the primary bread winner for his family. (ECF No. 55-

9 at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff asserts that although Cardinal did, long ago, pay him maintenance, he is 

currently unable to work at all, or earn any money, and Cardinal has not started paying 

maintenance since the time of his recent surgery. (Id.) Plaintiff does not see how he will 

be able to take care of his family if his court date is extended to 2019. (Id.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff requests a shorter extension of the fact and expert discovery deadlines and no 

extensions of any other dates. (ECF No. 55 at 11-13.) Plaintiff previously agreed to a fact 

discovery deadline of May 21, 2018, and an expert discovery deadline of July 2, 2018. (Id.; 

see also ECF No. 55-8 at ¶ 5.) Thus, Plaintiff’s agreed-to fact discovery deadline would 

be approximately five (5) months after his surgery. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant an approximate sixty

(60)-day extension of all upcoming dates1in the Scheduling Order. With such an 

extension, more than four (4) months will pass after Plaintiff’s surgery before the fact 

 

1 This excludes the rebuttal expert designation deadline of January 19, 2018, 

which remains in effect. (ECF No. 50 at ¶ 3.)

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

discovery deadline, giving Plaintiff what appears to be sufficient time to recover and allow 

time for his deposition to be taken. The extension of all dates in the Scheduling Order will 

also enable the parties and the Court to proceed in an orderly and logical fashion. Although 

Defendants request more time, they have not justified such a lengthy request, and the Court 

finds that Plaintiff would be prejudiced by any unnecessary delay.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court modifies the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50) as 

follows:

1. By June 5, 2018, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 

Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 

requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 

testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 

expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 

make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 

evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 

the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).

2. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 

evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by June 26, 2018.

3. All non-expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 11, 2018. 

All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 31, 2018. “Completed” 

means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance 

of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account 

the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to 

all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects 

counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the 

meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel 

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

shall file an appropriate joint motion within the time limit and according to the procedures 

outlined in Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick’s Civil Chambers Rules, which are posted 

on the Court’s website. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a 

party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the Court, no stipulation continuing or 

altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court.

4. Please be advised that failure to comply with any discovery order of the Court 

may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 

the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.

5. All dispositive motions must be filed by September 7, 2018. Counsel for the 

moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 

hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 

hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 

to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 

Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 

district judge.

6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on November 16, 

2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick. Counsel shall 

submit settlement statements directly to Judge Bartick’s chambers by November 9, 2018.

2

The parties may either submit confidential settlement statements or may exchange their 

settlement statements. Each party’s settlement statement shall set forth the party’s 

statement of the case, identify controlling legal issues, concisely set out issues of liability 

and damages, and shall set forth the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or 

demand made by that party, and a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is 

prepared to make at the settlement conference. The settlement conference briefs shall 

 

2 Statements under 20 pages in length, including attachments and exhibits, shall 

be e-mailed to chambers at efile_Bartick@casd.uscourts.gov. Statements exceeding 20 

pages in length, including attachments and exhibits, must be delivered directly to chambers.

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

not be filed with the Clerk of the Court. 

All named parties, all counsel, and any other person(s) whose authority is 

required to negotiate and enter into settlement shall appear in person at the 

conference. The individual(s) present at the Mandatory Settlement Conference with 

settlement authority must have the unfettered discretion and authority on behalf of the party 

to: 1) fully explore all settlement options and to agree during the Mandatory Settlement 

Conference to any settlement terms acceptable to the party (G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. 

v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989)), 2) change the settlement position 

of a party during the course of the Mandatory Settlement Conference (Pitman v. Brinker 

Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003)), and 3) negotiate a settlement without 

being restricted by any predetermined level of authority (Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 

270 F.3d 590, 596 (8th Cir. 2001)).

Governmental entities may appear through litigation counsel only. As to all other 

parties, appearance by litigation counsel only is not acceptable. Retained outside corporate 

counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party who has the authority to 

negotiate and enter into a settlement. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized 

person to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference as required shall be cause 

for the immediate imposition of sanctions. All conference discussions will be informal, 

off the record, privileged, and confidential.

7. If the trial will be a bench trial, Counsel shall file their Memoranda of 

Contentions of Fact and Law and take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) 

by November 28, 2018. Counsel do not need to file Memoranda of Contentions of Fact 

and Law if the trial will be a jury trial.

8. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by November 28, 2018. Failure to comply with these disclosure 

requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37.

///

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 

December 5, 2018. The parties shall meet and confer and prepare a proposed pretrial order 

containing the following:

1. A joint neutral statement to be read to the jury, not in excess of one 

page, of the nature of the case and the claims and defenses.

2. A list of the causes of action to be tried, referenced to the Complaint 

[and Counterclaim if applicable]. For each cause of action, the order shall 

succinctly list the elements of the claim, damages and any defenses. A cause 

of action in the Complaint [and/or Counterclaim] which is not listed shall be 

dismissed with prejudice.

3(a). A list of each witness counsel actually expect to call at trial with a brief 

statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the witnesses’

testimony.

3(b). A list of each expert witness counsel actually expect to call at trial with 

a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the 

witnesses’ testimony.

3(c). A list of additional witnesses, including experts, counsel do not expect 

to call at this time but reserve the right to call at trial along with a brief 

statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the witnesses’

testimony.

4(a). A list of all exhibits that counsel actually expect to offer at trial with a 

one-sentence description of the exhibit.

4(b). A list of all other exhibits that counsel do not expect to offer at this time 

but reserve the right to offer if necessary at trial with a one-sentence 

description of the exhibit.

5. A statement of all facts to which the parties stipulate. This statement 

shall be on a separate page and will be read to and provided to the jury. The 

parties are directed to meet with the assigned magistrate judge to work out as 

many stipulations of fact as possible.

6. A list of all deposition transcripts by page and line, or videotape 

depositions by section, that will be offered at trial.

7. In addition to filing proposed jury instructions in accordance with Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 51 and CivLR 51.1, the parties shall e-mail the proposed 

instructions in Word or Wordperfect form to Chambers. If a party disagrees 

with a particular instruction, the party shall submit an alternate instruction.

The pretrial order requirements set forth in paragraphs 3(a)-(c), 4(a)-(b), and 

6 above, extend to evidence that counsel anticipate may be used on cross-examination, 

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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

including impeachment evidence.

The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to 

work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The Court will 

entertain any questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference.

10. Counsel for Plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 

arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By December 12, 

2018, Plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order 

for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with Plaintiff’s 

attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties 

shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order.

11. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 

other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 

lodged with the assigned district judge by December 19, 2018, and shall be in the form 

prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6).

12. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 

Barry Ted Moskowitz on January 9, 2019 at 3:30 p.m.

13. A post-trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 

within 30 days of verdict in the case.

14. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 

shown.

15. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 

shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. 

No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 

Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 

and a table of authorities cited.

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

16-cv-02077-BTM (DHB)

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. Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 

case hereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02077-BTM-DHB Document 58 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10