Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01872/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01872-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIM F. MALONE, D.P.M., and JIM

MALONE D.P.M., INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1872 OWW JLT

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

Settlement Conference Date:

2/17/10 9:30 Bakersfield

Motion in Limine Date:

02/26/10 12:00 noon, Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 03/09/10 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-8 days)

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The United States seeks to recover damages and civil

penalties from Defendants Malone and JM Corp. (collectively

“Defendants”) based on allegations that Defendants made false

claims and false statements to the Medicare program to obtain

payment for alleged podiatry services. This Court has

jurisdiction in this action under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) and 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345. Venue is proper in this District under 31

U.S.C. § 3732(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

II. JURY/NON-JURY

1. Jury trial has been demanded by Defendants and the

1

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 24
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

Court reserves eight (8) days for trial. 

III. FACTS

A. Undisputed Facts

Identity of the Defendants

1. At all times material to this civil action, Defendant

Malone, a podiatrist, was a participant in the Medicare program

within the State of California and this district both directly

and through Defendant JM Corp. (Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact

No. 1). 

2. Defendant JM Corp. is a professional corporation

organized under the laws of the State of California. At all

times material to this civil action, Defendant Malone was a

shareholder in JM Corp. and operated and managed Defendant JM

Corp. (Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 2). 

3. Defendant Malone and JM Corp. are each “persons” within

the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. (1 USC

§ 1). 

The United States and the Medicare Program Entities

4. The Medicare Program is a federal health insurance

system that provides benefits for eligible aged and disabled

persons. Medicare Part B is a voluntary subscription program of

supplementary medical insurance covering items and services other

than hospitalization expenses, such as charges for certain

physician services. (Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 3). 

5. The United States provides reimbursement for Medicare

Part B claims through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services (“CMS”) (formerly the Health Care Financing

Administration (“HCFA”)). CMS contracts with private insurance

2

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 24
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

carriers to administer, process, and pay Medicare Part B claims

from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund,

which is funded by the United States Treasury. In this capacity,

the insurance carriers act on behalf of the federal government. 

(Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 4). 

6. The insurance carrier that administered, processed and

paid the Medicare claims at issue in this case was National

Heritage Insurance Company (“NHIC”). (Scheduling Order, Admitted

Fact No. 9 [modified]). 

The Medicare Reimbursement Process.

7. Providers billing the Medicare program must code the

medical services and procedures in accordance with the

Physician’s Current Procedural Terminology guide (“CPT guide”),

or in certain cases by using HCFA Common Procedure Coding System

codes (“HDPCS codes”). The CPT guide provides a listing of

descriptive terms and corresponding identifying codes (“CPT

codes”) for reporting medical services and procedures performed

by providers. Providers are required to use CPT codes or HDPCS

codes to describe the medical services and procedures for which

they bill Medicare. (Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 5).

8. Healthcare providers, including podiatrists, must

comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and Medicare policy

and guidelines in order to be reimbursed by Medicare. 

(Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 6).

9. At all times material to this civil action, providers

billing the Medicare program were required to submit either a

hard-copy claim form called a CMS 1500 (formerly HCFA 1500), or

its electronic equivalent. On the CMS 1500 claim form, the

3

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 24
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

provider certifies, among other things, that “the services shown

on [the] form were medically indicated and necessary for the

health of the patient.” The form also notifies providers that

“[a]ny person who knowingly files a statement of claim containing

any misrepresentation or any false, incomplete or misleading

information may be . . . subject to civil penalties.” 

(Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No. 7). 

10. As a condition of submitting electronic Medicare

claims, defendants Malone and JM Corp. agreed that any electronic

claims they submitted would be accurate, complete, and truthful,

and acknowledged that the submission of an electronic claim is a

claim for payment under the Medicare program. (Scheduling Order,

Admitted Fact No. 8). 

11. Defendants Malone and JM Corp. submitted each of the

Medicare claims at issue in this case by submitting hard copy CMS

1500 claims, or equivalent electronic claims, to NHIC for payment

from the Medicare program. (Scheduling Order, Admitted Fact No.

9 [modified]). 

Defendants’ 99301 Claims.

12. Between 1995 and 2000, Defendants provided podiatric

care to patients at numerous skilled nursing facilities

throughout the San Joaquin Valley. (Malone Depo, 63:14-20).

13. In those instances during the period of 1995 through

2000 in which Defendants provided podiatric care at a skilled

nursing facility to a patient who received Medicare benefits and

for whom Defendants had not previously provided podiatric care

(i.e., a new Medicare patient), it was Defendants’ custom and

practice to submit a claim to NHIC for the initial patient visit

4

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 24
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

seeking reimbursement for the service described under CPT Code

99301. (Malone Depo, 177:1-178:9, 182:20-184:25).

14. Defendant Malone’s 99301 claims may be summarized as

follows:

a. Between November 21, 1996 and April 23, 2004,

Defendant Malone submitted 5,768 separate claims to HNIC that

sought Medicare reimbursement for CPT Code 99301 services. The

claim number, date of service, claim submission date and, where

applicable, the date and amount of payment for each of the 5,768

separate claims is set forth at pages 1 through 109 of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. (February 29, 2008 Order

Re: Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions).

b. The following 7 claims are representative of the

nature and scope of care provided by Defendant Malone in each of

the 5,768 separate claims at issue, and as such, the parties

agree that the Court’s findings with regard to the following

claims can and should be applied to the universe of Defendant

Malone’s 99301 claims as a whole: (i) Dellwood R. (Ref. # 2891);

(ii) Teddi B. (Ref. # 4668); (iii) James W. (Ref. # 529); (iv)

Guy T. (Ref. # 5266); (v) Gertrude W. (Ref. # 5160); (vi) Grace

H. (Ref. # 5209); (vii) Dorothy M. (Ref. # 5498).”

c. Although some of the 5,768 separate claims at

issue were submitted by Defendant Malone to NHIC after December

31, 2000, the service date for all 5,768 claims at issue predates December 31, 2000.

d. The claims identified on pages 1 through 109 of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to the Complaint as Claim Nos. 1 through

2805 were all submitted by Defendant Malone prior to January 6,

5

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 5 of 24
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

1999. Claim Nos. 2806 through 5768 were submitted by Defendant

Malone on or after January 6, 1999. 

15. Defendant JM Corp.’s 99301 claims may be summarized as

follows:

a. Between October 15, 1997 and February 22, 2002,

Defendant JM Corp. submitted 842 separate claims to HNIC that

sought Medicare reimbursement for CPT Code 99301 services. The

claim number, date of service, claim submission date and, where

applicable, the date and amount of payment for each of the 842

separate claims is set forth at pages 110 through 125 of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. (February 29, 2008 order

Re: Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions).

b. The following 7 claims are representative of the

nature and scope of care provided by Defendant JM Corp. in each

of the 842 separate claims at issue and, as such, the parties

agree that the Court’s findings with regard to the following

claims can and should be applied to the universe of Defendant JM

Corp.’s 99301 claims as a whole: (i) Dellwood R. (Ref. # 2891);

(ii) Teddi B. (Ref. # 4668); (iii) James W. (Ref. # 5029); (iv)

Guy T. (Ref # 5266); (iii) James W. (Ref. # 5029); (iv) Guy T.

(Ref. # 5266); (v) Gertrude W. (Ref. # 5160); (vi) Grace H. (Ref.

# 5209); (vii) Dorothy M. (Ref. # 5498).”

c. Although some of the 842 separate claims at issue

were submitted by Defendant JM Corp. to NHIC after December 31,

2000, the service date for all 842 claims at issue pre-dates

December 31, 2000.

d. The claims identified on pages 110 through 125 of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to the Complaint as Claim Nos. 1 through

6

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 6 of 24
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

835 were all submitted by Defendant JM Corp. prior to January 6,

1999. Claim Nos. 836 through 842 were submitted by Defendant JM

Corp. on or after January 6, 1999. 

Claims with Service Date After Date of Death

16. Between January 3, 1997, and February 5, 1999,

Defendants submitted 46 separate claims to NHIC that sought

Medicare reimbursement for podiatric services that Defendants

represented were provided on a date that was subsequent to the

actual date of death for each corresponding patient. The claim

number, alleged service date, date of death and claim date for

each claim at issue is set forth in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 to the

Complaint. (February 29, 2008 Order Re: Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions).

17. All but two of the 46 claims noted on Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint were submitted to NHIC by Defendants

prior to January 6, 1999. Claim Nos. 45 and 46 were submitted to

NHIC after January 6, 1999. 

Claims for Bi-Lateral Services to Amputees

18. Between December 17, 1996, and December 29, 1998,

Defendants submitted 12 separate claims to NHIC that sought

Medicare reimbursement for services that Defendants represented

were bilateral debridement services (i.e., treatment of 6 or more

toes) for patients who had, prior to the date of service,

undergone an amputation of one leg. The claim number, amputation

date, alleged service date, claim date and claim paid date for

each claim at issue is set forth in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 to the

Complaint. (February 29, 2008 Order Re: Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions). 

7

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 7 of 24
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

19. All but one of the 12 claims noted on Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint were submitted to NHIC by Defendants

prior to January 6, 1999. Claim No. 12 was submitted to NHIC

after January 6, 1999. 

Claims for Service Date December 18, 1996.

20. In 1997, Defendant Malone submitted claims to NHIC that

sought Medicare reimbursement for 171 separate podiatric services

that Defendant Malone represented were all performed on December

18, 1996. The claim number, claim date, claim paid date and

billing code for each of the 171 separate claims at issue is set

forth in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 to the Complaint. (February 29,

2008 order Re: Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions). 

Miscellaneous.

21. The United States and Defendants entered into a tolling

agreement in January 2005. Under the agreement, Defendants

waived “any statute of limitations, laches, or other similar

defenses (whether statutory, contractual, or otherwise) except

those defenses, if any, in existence on January 6, 2005.”

22. The United States filed the complaint on December 22,

2006. 

B. Disputed Facts

1. Whether Defendants submitted inflated bills to the

Medicare program and falsely billed the Medicare program for

services that were never performed and/or for which Defendants

were not entitled to payment from the Medicare program.

2. Whether Defendants submitted Medicare claims to NHIC

for comprehensive nursing facility assessments under CPT code

99301, when Defendants had not provided such services as defined

8

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 8 of 24
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

by the CPT guide and Medicare policy.

3. Whether Defendants submission of Medicare claims to

NHIC for alleged podiatric services on patients who had died

before the claimed date of service was due to administrative

errors that occurred despite Defendants’ diligence in attempting

to avoid such errors. 

4. Whether Defendants’ submission of medicare claims to

NHIC for alleged bilateral podiatric services (i.e., for both

feet) on patients who had one foot amputated prior to the claimed

date of service was due to administrative errors that occurred

despite Defendants’ diligence in attempting to avoid such errors.

5. Whether Defendants submitted Medicare claims to NHIC

for excessive services in a single day, beyond the number that

could be provided within the standard of care.

6. Whether Defendant is entitled to an offset. 

IV. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

1. None. 

V. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

1. This case does not fall within the list of actions

identified in Local Rule 281(b)(6). 

VI. RELIEF SOUGHT

1. The United States seeks the following relief:

a. On Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action

under the False Claims Act arising out of Defendant Malone’s

submission of 99301 claims, Plaintiff seeks $233,069.29 in

damages (trebled per 31 U.S.C. § 3729) plus civil interest and

penalties.

b. On Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action

9

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 9 of 24
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

under the False Claims Act arising out of Defendant JM Corp.’s

submission of 99301 claims, Plaintiff seeks $24,135.68 in damages

(trebled per 31 U.S.C. § 3729) plus civil interest and penalties. 

c. On Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action

under the False Claims Act arising out of Defendants’ submission

of claims for services after the date of death of the patients at

issue, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729.

d. On Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action

under the False Claims Act arising out of Defendants’ submission

of claims for bilateral podiatric services for patients who had

one foot amputated prior to the alleged date of service,

Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729.

e. On Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for common

law fraud, Fourth Cause of Action for payment by mistake of fact,

and Fifth Cause of Action for unjust enrichment, all arising out

of Defendant’s submission of the Medicare claims identified

above, Plaintiff seeks $257,204.97 in damages plus interest and

costs. 

VII. DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW

A. Plaintiffs Legal Theory

1. The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person

who “knowingly presents . . . to . . . the United States

Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment.” 31

U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). A request for reimbursement from Medicare

is a “claim” within the meaning of the False Claims Act. 

Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1975). A claim is

“knowingly” false or fraudulent where the defendant either

10

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 10 of 24
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

actually knows the falsity of the information underlying his

claim, deliberately ignores the truth or falsity of the

underlying information, or acts in reckless disregard of the

truth or falsity of the underlying information, and “no specific

intent to defraud is required.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b). 

2. In addition to Plaintiff’s False Claims Act

allegations, Plaintiff has asserted common law claims for fraud,

mistake of fact, and unjust enrichment. United States v. G & H

Machinery, 92 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Ill. 1981) (alternative

theories, including common law claims, may be presented by the

Government for resolution by the trier of fact). 

3. As an alternative to remedies under the False Claims

Act, Plaintiff is entitled to damages on proof that (i)

Defendants made material misrepresentations in the Medicare

submissions; (ii) Defendants knew of the falsity of the

representations or recklessly disregarded the truth; (iii) the

Government relied on the representations; and (iv) the Government

has suffered damages. United States v. Cripps, 460 F.Supp. 969,

975 (E.D. Mich. 1978). 

4. As an alternative to remedies under the False Claims

Act, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution on proof that

Defendants received reimbursement on the Medicare claims by

mistake and without right. United States v. Mead, 426 F.2d 118,

124 (9th Cir. 1970). Proof of fraud is not necessary. Id. at

124-125.

5. Finally, as an alternative to remedies under the False

Claims Act, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution on proof that

Defendants were enriched at Plaintiff’s expense, and “the

11

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 11 of 24
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

circumstances were such that in equity and good conscience the

defendant should return the money to the plaintiff.” Blusal

Meats, Inc. v. United States, 638 F.Supp. 824, 831 (S.D.N.Y.

1986), aff’d, 817 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Reprosystem,

B.V. v. SCM Corp., 727 F.2d 257, 263 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469

U.S. 828 (1984). “Proof of wrongful conduct by the defendant is

not required.” Ibid.

Defendants’ Legal Theory.

1. Defendants deny liability and assert that any

allegations of liability arising out of the Medicare claims

submitted by Defendants to NHIC prior to January 6, 1999, are

barred by the three-year or six-year limitations periods

prescribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3731, the six-year limitations period

prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2415, and the doctrine of equitable

estoppel.

VIII. ABANDONED ISSUES

1. None.

IX. WITNESSES

A. Plaintiffs

1. Jim F. Malone, D.P.M.

2. Rebecca Lewis

3. Robert Hampton

4. Maria Sharp

5. Allen Pajarin

6. Mihaela Cintean

7. Dustin Paisley

8. Gaye Eaton

9. Dorothy Russell

12

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 12 of 24
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

10. Jim Nycum

11. Lorrali Herrera

12. Michele Kelly

13. Randall Sarte, D.P.M.

14. Neil C. Schwertman, Ph.D.

B. Defendants

1. Jim F. Malone, D.P.M.

2. Rebecca Lewis

3. Robert Hampton

Counsel are each ordered to submit a list of witnesses to

the court along with a copy for use by the Courtroom Deputy

Clerk, on the same date and at the same time as the list of

exhibits are to be submitted as ordered below. 

CAUTION

Counsel are cautioned that expert witnesses, including

percipient experts, must be designated as such. No witness, not

identified as a witness in this order, including “rebuttal”

witnesses, will be sworn or permitted to testify at trial.

X. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that

the parties expect to offer at trial. 

CAUTION

Only exhibits so listed will be permitted to be offered into

evidence at trial, except as may be otherwise provided in this

order. No exhibit not designated in this pretrial order shall be

marked for identification or admitted into evidence at trial. 

1. Complaint and Exhibits 1 through 4 thereto.

2. Answer.

13

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 13 of 24
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. Plaintiff’s Written Discovery and Defendants’ Responses

thereto.

4. Defendants’ Written Discovery and Plaintiff’s Responses

thereto.

5. 02/29/08 Order Re: Discovery.

6. Documents produced by Defendant in Response to Written

Discovery, including Hospital Work Sheets.

7. Transcript of Malone Deposition and Exhibits A through

Q thereto.

8. Transcript of Hampton Deposition and Exhibits R through

S thereto.

9. Transcript of Lewis Deposition.

10. CV and reports of Dr. Sarte.

11. CV and reports of Dr. Schwertman.

12. Documentation regarding claims by Dr. Malone for

services to beneficiaries after date of death, produced February

16, 2006. US000001-117.

13. Documentation regarding claims by Dr. Malone for

alleged debridement and other services for previously-amputated

beneficiaries, produced February 16, 2006. US000118-285.

14. Documentation regarding additional claims by Dr. Malone

for alleged debridement and other services for previouslyamputated beneficiaries, produced February 16, 2006. US000286-

312.

15. Documentation regarding additional claims by Dr. Malone

for alleged services to beneficiaries after date of death,

produced February 16, 2006. US000313-454.

16. Documentation regarding additional claims by Dr. Malone

14

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 14 of 24
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

for alleged services to beneficiaries after date of death,

produced February 24, 2006. US000455-467.

17. Medicare EMC faxes for 99301 billings. US000468-6965.

18. CPT Guides, Podiatry Billing Guides, Medicare Bulletins

and Newsletters. US006966-7126, US010308-10384.

19. February 27, 1997 Audit. US007127-7166.

20. NHIC audit. US007167-7176.

21. NHIC Audit Medical Records and Back-Up Documents. 

US007177-10028.

22. Medicare Applications, Agreements, License and

Corporate Documents, and Payment Records. US010029-10307.

23. HHS audit. US010385-10423.

24. HHS Audit Medical Records and Back-Up Documents. 

US010424-12559.

25. Back-up data for Complaint Exhibits 1 through 4. 

US01250-12713. 

26. Full copies of CPTs for 1995-2000.

27. Exemplars of CMS 1500.

28. Exemplar CPT 99301 Comprehensive Evaluation checklist.

29. Patient photographs.

30. Claims summary charts.

31. Defendants’ additional documentation concerning agreedupon sample claims. 

32. Defendant Bankruptcy Records (offered by Plaintiff).

33. Documents relating to other Medicare audit/review and

determinations of patient services billed under CPT 99301 not

pursuant to this law suit (offered by Defendants). 

XI. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

15

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 15 of 24
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

Only specifically designated discovery requests and

responses will be admitted into evidence. Any deposition

testimony shall be designated by page and line and such

designations filed with the Court on or before February 19, 2010. 

The opposing party shall counter-designate by line and page from

the same deposition and shall file written objections to any

question and answer designated by the opposing party and filed

with the court on or before February 26, 2010.

Written discovery shall be identified by number of the

request. The proponent shall lodge the original discovery

request and verified response with the courtroom deputy one day

prior to trial. The discovery request and response may either be

read into evidence, or typed separately, marked as an exhibit, as

part of the exhibit marking process, and offered into evidence.

1. The parties seek to introduce the deposition testimony

of Rebecca “Becky” Lewis in lieu of her live testimony on the

ground that she resides out-of-state and is unavailable for

trial. 

2. The parties further reserve the right to refer at trial

to the deposition transcripts of Jim F. Malone and Robert Hampton

for impeachment or other allowable purposes. 

XII. STIPULATIONS

1. The parties stipulate to the authenticity and

admissibility of the medical records produced in Plaintiff’s

initial disclosures and in Defendants’ Responses to Requests for

Production. 

XIII. AMENDMENTS - DISMISSALS

1. None. 

16

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 16 of 24
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

XIV. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION

A. Trial Briefs.

Counsel are directed to file a trial brief in this matter by

March 3, 2010. No extended preliminary statement of facts is

required. The brief should address disputed issues of

substantive law, disputed evidentiary issues of law that will not

be resolved in limine, and any other areas of dispute that will

require resolution by reference to legal authority.

B. Duty of Counsel To Pre-Mark Exhibits.

1. Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and conduct

a joint exhibit conference on February 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. via

telephone conference for purposes of pre-marking and examining

each other’s exhibits and preparing an exhibit list. All joint

exhibits will be pre-marked JX1-JX50; all of the plaintiff’s

exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers 51-150; all of

defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers 151-250.

2. Each and every page of each and every exhibit shall be

individually Bates-stamped for identification purposes, and

paginated with decimals and arabic numerals in seriatim; i.e.,

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 . . .. 

3. Following such conference, each counsel shall have

possession of four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits, for

use as follows:

a. Two (2) sets to be delivered to the Courtroom

Deputy Clerk, Renee Gaumnitz, no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 5,

2010, an original for the court and one for the witness. 

b. One (1) set to be delivered to counsel for the

opposing party and one (1) set to be available for counsel’s own

17

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 17 of 24
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

use.

4. Counsel are to confer to make the following

determination as to each of the exhibits proposed to be

introduced into evidence and prepare separate indexes, one

listing joint exhibits, one listing each party’s exhibits:

a. Joint exhibits, i.e., any document which both

sides desire to introduce into evidence, will be marked as a

joint exhibit (JX), and numbered JX1-___. Joint exhibits shall

be listed as such in the exhibit list in a column that notes they

are admitted into evidence without further foundation;

b. As to any exhibit, not a joint exhibit, to which

there is no objection to its introduction into evidence, the

exhibit will be marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit ___, or Defendant’s

Exhibit ___ in evidence, and will be listed in the exhibit list

as the exhibit of the offering party;

c. The exhibit list shall include columns for noting

objections to exhibits. The first column will list any

objections as to foundation; i.e., Plaintiff’s Foundation 2 -

“not authenticated.”

d. The exhibit list shall include a second column for

noting substantive objections to exhibits based on any other

grounds; i.e., “hearsay, improper opinion, irrelevant.” 

e. The exhibit list shall include a description of

each exhibit on the left-hand side of the page, and the three

columns outlined above (as shown in the example below).

List of Exhibits

 Admitted Objection Other

Exhibit # Description In Evidence To Foundation Objection

18

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 18 of 24
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

f. The completed exhibit list shall be delivered to

Renee Gaumnitz CRD on or before March 5, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. 

g. If originals of exhibits cannot be located, copies

may be used, however, the copies must be legible and accurate. 

If any document is offered into evidence that is partially not

legible, the Court sua sponte will exclude it from evidence.

C. Discovery Documents.

1. Counsel shall file a list of discovery documents with

Renee Gaumnitz CRD at the same time and date as the witness and

exhibit lists are lodged with her, unless the discovery documents

are marked as exhibits, which counsel intend to use at trial by

designating by number, the specific interrogatory, request for

admission, or other discovery document. Counsel shall comply

with the directions of subsection XII (above) for introduction of

the discovery document into evidence.

///

D. Motions In Limine.

1. The motions in limine shall be filed by February 12,

2010, and any responses shall be filed by February 23, 2010. The

Court will conduct a hearing on motions in limine in this matter

on February 26, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3, Seventh

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger United States

District Judge, at which time all evidentiary objections, to the

extent possible, will be ruled upon, and all other matters

pertaining to the conduct of the trial will be settled.

E. Trial Documents.

1. Exhibits To Be Used With Witness. During the trial of 

the case, it will be the obligation of counsel to provide

19

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 19 of 24
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

opposing counsel not less than forty-eight hours before the

witness is called to the witness stand, the name of the witness

who will be called to testify and to identify to the Court and

opposing counsel any exhibit which is to be introduced into

evidence through such witness that has not previously been

admitted by stipulation or court order or otherwise ruled upon,

and to identify all exhibits and other material that will be

referred to in questioning of each witness. If evidentiary

problems are anticipated, the parties must notify the court at

least twenty-four hours before the evidence will be presented. 

F. Counsel’s Duty To Aid Court In Jury Voir Dire.

1. Counsel shall submit proposed voir dire questions, if

any, to Renee Gaumnitz CRD at rgaumnitz@caed.uscourts.gov on or

before March 5, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Counsel shall also prepare a

joint “statement of the case” which shall be a neutral statement,

describing the claims and defenses for prospective jurors, to be

used in voir dire. The parties have endeavored to prepare a

detailed statement of undisputed facts herein, and the parties

may augment this statement prior to trial. 

2. In order to aid the court in the proper voir dire

examination of the prospective jurors, counsel are directed to

lodge with the Court the day before trial a list of the

prospective witnesses they expect to call if different from the

list of witnesses contained in the Pre-Trial Order of the Court. 

Such list shall not only contain the names of the witnesses, but

their business or home address to the extent known. This does

not excuse any failure to list all witnesses in the Pre-Trial

Order.

20

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 20 of 24
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. Counsel shall jointly submit, to Renee Gaumnitz CRD the

Friday before trial, a neutral statement of the claims and

defenses of the parties for use by the court in voir dire.

G. Counsel’s Duty To Prepare And Submit Jury Instructions.

1. All proposed jury instructions shall be filed and

served on or before March 8, 2010, by 4:00 p.m. Jury

instructions shall be submitted in the following format.

2. Proposed jury instructions, including verdict forms,

shall be submitted via e-mail to dpell@caed.uscourts.gov

formatted in WordPerfect for Windows X3. Counsel shall be

informed on all legal issues involved in the case.

3. The parties are required to jointly submit one set of

agreed upon jury instructions. To accomplish this, the parties

shall serve their proposed instructions upon the other fourteen

days prior to trial. The parties shall then meet, confer, and

submit to the Court the Friday before the trial is to commence,

one complete set of agreed-upon jury instructions.

4. If the parties cannot agree upon any instruction, they 

shall submit a supplemental set of instructions designated as not

agreed upon by March 8, 2010, at 4:00 p.m.

5. Each party shall file with the jury instructions any

objection to non-agreed upon instructions proposed by any other

party. All objections shall be in writing and shall set forth

the proposed instruction objected to in its entirety. The

objection should specifically set forth the objectionable matter

in the proposed instruction and shall include a citation to legal

authority explaining the grounds for the objection and why the

instruction is improper. A concise statement of argument

21

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 21 of 24
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

concerning the instruction may be included. Where applicable,

the objecting party shall submit an alternative proposed

instruction covering the subject or issue of law.

6. Format. The parties shall submit one copy of each

instruction. The copy shall indicate the party submitting the

instruction, the number of the proposed instruction in sequence,

a brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter,

the test of the instruction, the legal authority supporting the

instruction, and a legend in the lower lefthand corner of the

instruction: “Given,” “Given As Modified,” “Withdrawn” and

“Refused” showing the Court’s action with regard to each

instruction and an initial line for the judge’s initial in the

lower right-hand corner of the instruction. Ninth Circuit Model

Jury Instructions should be used where the subject of the

instruction is covered by a model instruction.

7. All instruction should be short, concise,

understandable, and neutral statements of the law. Argumentative

or formula instructions will not be given, and should not be

submitted.

8. Parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any 

modifications of instructions from statutory authority, or any

pattern instruction such as the Model Circuit Jury Instructions

or any other source of pattern instructions, and must

specifically state the modification made to the original form

instruction and the legal authority supporting the modification.

9. Proposed verdict forms shall be jointly submitted or if

the verdict forms are unagreed upon, each party shall submit a

proposed verdict form. Verdict forms shall be submitted to the

22

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 22 of 24
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

Courtroom Deputy Clerk on the first day of the trial. 

10. Failure to comply with these rules concerning the

preparation and submission of instructions and verdict forms may

subject the non-complying party and/or its attorneys to

sanctions.

XV. USE OF LAPTOP COMPUTERS/POWERPOINT FOR

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

1. If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for

presentation of evidence, they shall contact Renee Gaumnitz CRD

at least one week prior to trial. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk

will arrange a time for any attorney to bring any laptop to be

presented to someone from the Court’s Information Technology

Department, who will provide brief training on how the parties’

electronic equipment interacts with the court’s audio/visual

equipment. If counsel intend to use PowerPoint, the resolution

should be set no higher than 1024 x 768 when preparing the

presentation.

2. ALL ISSUES CONCERNING AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS AND

COMPUTER INTERFACE WITH THE COURT’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SHALL

BE REFERRED TO THE COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK. 

XVI. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

1. None. 

XVII. SETTLEMENT

1. A settlement conference is set on February 17, 2010 at

9:30 a.m. in Bakersfield before Magistrate Judge Thurston. 

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

1. Defendant seeks a bifurcated trial on the issue of the

defense of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff objects to the

23

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 23 of 24
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

request. This request is a dispositive motion out of time.

XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS, LIMITATIONS OF EXPERTS

1. Not applicable. 

XX. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1. Not applicable, none sought. 

XXI. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME

1. Eight days.

XXII. TRIAL DATE

1. March 9, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, on the

Seventh Floor.

XXIII. NUMBER OF JURORS AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

1. There will be an eight person jury, each side shall

have four peremptory challenges. 

XXIV. AMENDMENT OF FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1. The Final Pretrial Order shall be reviewed by the

parties and any corrections, additions, and deletions shall be

drawn to the attention of the Court immediately. Otherwise, the

Final Pretrial Order may only be amended or modified to prevent

manifest injustice pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(e). 

XXV. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Not applicable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

Case 1:06-cv-01872-OWW -JLT Document 56 Filed 02/16/10 Page 24 of 24