Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02439/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02439-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

LAWRENCE BRAGMAN, SB #104039

Attorney at Law

912 Lootens Place

San Rafael, California 94901

Telephone: (415) 459-6060

Facsimile: (415) 459-6067

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS SIUDA, by and through his

Guardian Ad Litem, TERESA SIUDA,

DOMINICK TRANFAGLIA, by and

through his Guardian Ad Litem, 

CHRISTINA TRANFAGLIA, TERESA

SIUDA, an individual, and CHRISTINA

TRANFAGLIA, an individual,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

NUMBER THREE, and DOES 1 - 100,

inclusive,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE No: CIV.S-03-2439 FCD KJM

STIPULATION RE: CONTINUANCE OF

DISCOVERY DEADLINE BECAUSE OF

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND

PROPOSED ORDER THEREON

COME NOW plaintiffs, NICHOLAS SIUDA by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, 

TERESA SIUDA by and through attorney, Lawrence Bragman, DOMINICK TRANFAGLIA by

and through his Guardian Ad Litem, CHRISTINA TRANFAGLIA by and through attorney,

Lawrence Bragman; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney,

Kendall J. Newman, who do hereby stipulate and agree:

1. The above captioned case involves allegations of sexual abuse of the two minor

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 4
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

plaintiffs by another minor. The alleged instances of sexual abuse occurred at Child

Development Center Three, a facility operated by the U.S. Air Force at Travis Air Force Base.

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1 ).

2. As set forth in the original stipulation to extend discovery deadlines and continue the

trial date, there have been a number of challenging issues that have slowed the pace of discovery

in this case. First of all, the ages of the principles ranged from four to five years of age.

Accordingly, the case presents exceptionally sensitive and challenging issues of proof. 

3. Due to the young age of the plaintiffs, most of the evidence that is being examined in

this case is contained in voluminous reports of investigation and the records of subsequent

medical treatment. During the pendency of the claim, the SIUDA family moved to Colorado and

there are therefore records relating to this minor plaintiff’s care from both the States of California

and Colorado. 

4. Completion of all depositions by the current deadline of August 26th is virtually

impossible to meet. At present there are six depositions that remain to be taken. Five of these

depositions are of treating healthcare providers. One of these healthcare providers resides in the

State of Colorado. The one lay witness is an active duty member of the United States Air Force,

Sgt. Jason Tranfaglia. In addition, two employees of the United States are now out of the country

and not available for deposition. As a consequence, plaintiff will propound written discovery to

them which will take at least thirty days to complete. 

5. The court’s discovery cut-off date is also difficult to meet because plaintiffs’ counsel

is a sole practitioner and is dealing with a trial in another matter on July 25, 2005, two summary

judgement motions set for August 23, 2005 (opposition due August 9, 2005); a third summary

judgement motion set for September 7, 2005 (opposition due August 23, 2005). While counsel

have been trying to line up dates with the healthcare providers, it has been slow going due to

summer hours and other extenuating circumstances for the witnesses. These commitments make

completion of the remaining depositions in this case in the month of August impossible. In

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 4
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

recognition of all of these realities, both counsel have agreed upon a thirty day continuance of

the discovery cut-off only until September 26, 2005. 

6. The Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order sets plaintiffs’ initial disclosure of

expert witnesses for May 27, 2005. The defendant’s disclosure is scheduled for June 13, 2005.

Rebuttal witnesses were scheduled to be disclosed on June 30, 2005. Discovery is to be

completed by August 26, 2005. All dispositive motions are to be heard no later than November

4, 2005. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.. Trial is

now scheduled for April 4, 2006 at 1:30 p.m..

7. Because of the logistical, evidentiary and practical problems that have occurred in this

case as set forth hereinabove, both parties agree that it would be in the best interests of judicial

economy to continue the discovery deadline only for 30 days, or until September 26, 2005 in

order to permit the parties to complete the initial depositions of the parties and percipient

witnesses. 

8. The parties therefore agree and respectfully request that the following dates be

adjusted in conformity with the parties stipulation:; completion of discovery which is now set for

August 26, 2005 would be continued until September 26 , 2005 and that all other dates

remain the same. Thus the final dispositive motion deadline would remain November 4, 2005;

the Final Pretrial Conference would remain January 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.; and the trial date

would be remain April 4, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. . 

//

Dated: July 18, 2005 /s/ LAWRENCE BRAGMAN 

Lawrence Bragman

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: July 18, 2005 /s/ KENDALL J. NEWMAN 

 Kendall J. Newman

 Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 4
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 4

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED,

Dated: July 20, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 4