Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04025-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

1 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

BANNING MICKLOW & BULL LLP 

Edward M. Bull III, (SBN 141966) 

Eugene A. Brodsky, (SBN 33691) 

One Market, Steuart Tower, Suite 1440 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 399-9191 

Facsimile: (415) 399-9192 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ROBERT GOLDSWORTHY 

COX, WOOTTON, GRIFFIN, 

HANSEN & POULOS, LLP 

Richard C. Wootton (SBN 88390) 

Galin G. Luk (SBN 199728) 

190 The Embarcadero 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone No.: (415) 438-4600 

Facsimile No.: (415) 438-4601 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TUTOR-SALIBA/KOCH/TIDEWATER JV 

Rex M. Clack, Esq. (SBN 59237) 

David E. Russo, Esq. (SBN 112023) 

Neil Olson (SBN 120946) 

STERLING & CLACK 

A Professional Corporation 

101 Howard Street, Suite 400 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 543-5300 

Facsimile: (415) 543-3335 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CROSS LINK, INC. dba 

WESTAR MARINE SERVICES 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 8
2 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT GOLDSWORTHY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Tutor-Saliba/Koch/Tidewater JV, Westar 

Marine Services, Cross Link, Inc., and DOES 1-

10, in personam, and M/V PROWLER & M/V 

ROVER, their engines, tackle, apparel, 

furniture, etc., in rem, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C 06-4025MHP 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Date: November 13, 2006 

Time: 4:00 p.m. 

Courtroom: 15, 18th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Marylin Hall Patel 

 

 The parties to the above-captioned matter submit this Joint Case Management Conference 

Statement and Proposed Order and request that the Court adopt it as its Case Management Order in 

this action. The undersigned certify that they are the lead counsel who will try this case and that 

they have met and conferred for the preparation of this Statement as required by Local Rules of 

Court. 

Description of Events Underlying the Action

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for Jones Act negligence (46 U.S.C. App. § 

688), unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and negligence under general maritime law for 

injuries he allegedly sustained while employed as a seaman on a crew boat owned and operated by 

defendant Westar. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he injured his shoulder while attempting to 

transfer gas cylinders from a Westar vessel to a barge operated by co-defendant TutorSaliba/Koch/Tidewater JV, and that he has become disabled from his customary occupation as a 

result thereof. The defendant WESTAR denies that the plaintiff was injured, and denies that he was 

injured on the date(s), at the location(s) or in the manner alleged. WESTAR disputes the alleged 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 8
3 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

nature of the plaintiff’s injuries, if any, their alleged severity, duration and effect. WESTAR denies 

that the plaintiff is unable to return to work and contends that plaintiff has, in fact, returned to 

maritime employment. 

Identification of Factual Issues in Dispute

1) The nature of the alleged injury causing event. 

2) The date and/or location of the injury causing event, if any. 

3) The circumstances of the injuries that plaintiff claims he suffered. 

4) The cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, if any, that plaintiff claims he suffered. 

5) The extent, if any, of plaintiff’s wage loss claim. 

6) The extent, if any, of plaintiff’s unpaid medical expenses. 

7) The extent, if any, to which the plaintiff contributed to or caused his own injury. 

8) The extent and duration, if any, of plaintiff’s injury related disability. 

9) The parties reserve the right to supplement this list of fact issues as they become known through 

discovery or investigation. 

Identification Of Legal Issues In Dispute

1) Whether the defendants were negligent. 

2) Whether the vessel upon which plaintiff claims he was working or any of its work methods, or 

crew, were unseaworthy. 

3) Whether defendant Westar failed to pay maintenance and/or cure when WESTAR had a duty to 

do so. 

4) Whether the injuries alleged by the plaintiff are or were caused by the events in question. 

5) Whether and to what extent the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. 

6) Whether any alleged negligence and/or alleged unseaworthiness caused the plaintiff injury. 

// 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 8
4 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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) The nature and extent of the injuries the plaintiff suffered, if any, as a result of the events set 

forth in his First Amended Complaint. 

8) The nature and extent of plaintiff’s general and special damages as recognized pursuant to 

Federal Maritime Law. 

9) The parties reserve the right to supplement this list as further issues become known through 

discovery and/or investigation. 

Other Factual Issues

 The parties are not presently aware of any unresolved issues concerning service of process, 

jurisdiction or venue. The plaintiff does not currently anticipate serving any additional defendants. 

 WESTAR does not now know whether there are additional parties that might be served 

because WESTAR has not taken the plaintiff’s deposition or conducted discovery. Once discovery 

is underway, WESTAR will be in a better position to determine whether additional parties might be 

served. Until then, WESTAR does not know of any additional parties. 

Parties Which Have Not Been Served And The Reasons

 All named defendants have been served and have appeared. 

Relief Sought

 Plaintiff seeks special and general damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 WESTAR seeks judgment in its favor. If plaintiff should receive judgment in his favor, 

WESTAR seeks an allocation of liability as between all responsible parties, including the plaintiff. 

Initial Disclosures

 The parties completed their initial disclosures on November 6, 2006. 

Assignment to Magistrate Judge

 The parties do not consent to reassignment to a Magistrate Judge for trial of this matter. 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 4 of 8
5 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

Alternative Dispute Resolution

 The parties plan to schedule a private mediation after completion of discovery and prior to 

the exchange of expert reports. 

Related Cases

 There is no related case pending. 

Discovery and Motions

 The parties agree to the following discovery and pre-trial plan: 

 (a.) Discovery Planned: 

 The parties have not yet commenced discovery. At least the following depositions are 

anticipated: the plaintiff; the crew boat captain; other knowledgeable deck hands/marine workers; 

the Tutor-Saliba barge worker(s); persons most knowledgeable regarding the defendants’ 

operational policies and practices and the administration of plaintiff’s maintenance and cure; 

plaintiff’s medical providers and both parties’ expert witnesses, including the plaintiff’s treating 

physicians. The parties also anticipate serving interrogatories, requests for production of 

documents, and requests for admissions. Westar also anticipates requesting one or more 

Independent Medical Examinations as discovery regarding plaintiff’s alleged injuries proceeds. 

 (b.) Discovery Limits: 

 The parties agree to the following limits: 

1. Limits on the number of Depositions under FRCP 30(a)(2)(A), per party; 

2. Unlimited Requests for Production; 

3. Interrogatories limited to 35 by and between plaintiff and each defendant. 

// 

// 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 5 of 8
6 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

 (c.) Discovery and Pre-Trial Schedule: 

 The parties jointly propose the following deadlines and dates: 

a. Percipient Discovery – 60 days before trial; 

b. Mutual Disclosure of Experts – 50 days before trial; 

c. Supplemental Disclosure of Experts – 40 days before trial; 

d. Close of Expert Discovery – 30 days before trial; 

e. Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions – 30 days before trial; 

f. Joint Pretrial Statement due – 15 days before trial; and 

g. Pretrial Conference – 7 days before trial. 

Trial Schedule

 The parties anticipate that this action will require 7 to 10 days of testimony. Plaintiff has 

requested a jury trial. The length of the trial may be reduced by stipulation or other means. 

 The plaintiff requests that the trial of this action be set in October or November 2007. The 

defendants request that trial of this action not be set before February, 2008. Counsels’ experience 

has been that many of the percipient witnesses in these types of Jones Act cases are at sea from four 

to six months per year and coordinating their depositions with opposing counsel often takes more 

time than typically necessary to complete percipient witness depositions. 

Certification Of Counsel

 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-12, each of the undersigned certifies that they have read the 

brochure entitled “Dispute Resolution Procedures in Northern District of California,” discussed the 

available options provided by the court and private entities and have considered whether this case 

Designation of witnesses to be called in the case in chief -- 7/30/07 --- 8/31/07--- with CVs and Trial Reports --- 9/7/07 --- 9/18/07 ---- 9/28/07 --- 10/1/07 --- 10/16/07 --- Tues, 10/30/07 at 2:30 p.m. Tues., 11/6/07 at 8:30 a.m.

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 6 of 8
7 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

might benefit from any of those dispute resolution options. 

Dated: November 6, 2006 By: /s/ Edward M. Bull______

 Edward M. Bull III 

 Eugene A. Brodsky 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert 

 Goldsworthy 

Dated: November 6, 2006 By: /s/ Neil Olson_________

 Neil Olson 

 Rex M. Clack 

 David E. Russo 

 Attorneys for Defendants, 

 CROSS LINK, INC. dba 

 WESTAR MARINE SERVICES 

 . 

Dated: November 6, 2006 By: /s/ Richard Wootton_____

 Richard Wootton 

 Galin Luk 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 TUTOR-SALIBA/KOCH/TIDEWATER 

 JV 

David E. Russo attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each 

of the other signatories identified herein. 

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 7 of 8
8 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. C 06-4025 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

Case Management Order

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case 

Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. In addition 

the Court orders: 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

____________________ 

Dated: _______________________ ______________________________ 

 The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel 

 U.S. District Judge 

810026/P/CMCS.11-06-06 

11/27/06

Case 3:06-cv-04025-MHP Document 23 Filed 12/01/06 Page 8 of 8