Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00304/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00304-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

MIREYA MANQUERO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMETEK INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:10-cv-0304 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 9/9/11

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 9/26/11

Non-Dispositive Motion

Hearing Date: 10/28/11

9:00 Ctrm. 8

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 10/8/11

Dispositive Motion Hearing

Date: 11/21/11 10:00 Ctrm.

3

Settlement Conference Date:

12/7/11 11:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

1/9/12 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 2/28/12 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-16 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

June 30, 2010.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Sayre & Levitt, LLP by Tyler R. Dowdall, Esq., appeared on

1

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 11
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

behalf of Plaintiff. 

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, LLP by Gregory C. Read,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiffs are the family members of Anthony Manquero,

who died after exsanguinating on August 30, 2009 after an

industrial accident in which an auger crushed his left leg,

transecting the femoral and popliteal arteries. 

2. The injury took place in a winery located at 8418 S.

Lac Jac Avenue, Reedley, California 93654. The winery has an

auger system to transfer field grapes through a warehouse

building to a crusher on the other side. The auger system is

approximately 200 feet long, and is set in an 18x18-inch trough

below floor level. According to investigation reports, the

trough and auger are covered first by a heavy drive-over plate,

which allows industrial vehicles to cross, and then by a second

aluminum screen approximately ten-gauge thick. 

3. According to the OSHA report, decedent Anthony Manquero

was cleaning the trough with a co-employee on the day of the

accident. The driver-over plate had been removed, and the

employees were hosing out the trough while the auger was running. 

At some point, as decedent Anthony Manquero was apparently

attempting to step across the trough, his left heel went through

the second screen and became entangled in the auger, which pulled

him into the trough.

4. Co-employees stopped the auger, and the auger was

manually reversed by the fire department to free decedent. 

Anthony Manquero died at the scene. 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 11
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

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. There may be a need to amend to determine the correct

party who manufactured and installed the subject auger. The

parties agree that if the manufacturer of the auger is different

from the present designee, that the complaint may be amended by

stipulation to join the correct party. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff’s decedent, Anthony Manquero, died after

exsanguinating August 30, 2009, after an industrial accident in

which an auger crushed his left leg transecting the femoral and

popliteal arteries. 

2. The injury occurred at a winery located at 8418 S.

Lac Jac Avenue, Reedley, California 93654. 

3. The winery has an auger system to transfer field

grapes through a warehousing building to a crusher on the other

side. 

4. The auger system is approximately 200 feet long,

and is set in an 18x18-inch trough below floor level.

5. According to investigation reports, the trough and

auger are covered first by a heavy drive-over plate, which allows

industrial vehicles to cross, and then by a second aluminum

screen approximately ten-gauge thick. 

6. According to the OSHA report, decedent Anthony

Manquero was cleaning the trough with a co-employee on the day of

the accident. 

7. The drive-over plate had been removed, and the

3

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 11
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

employees were hosing out the trough while the auger was running. 

8. At some point, as decedent Anthony Manquero was

apparently attempting to step across the trough, his left heel

went through the second screen and became entangled in the auger,

which pulled him into the through. 

9. Co-employees stopped the auger, and the auger was

manually reversed by the fire department to free decedent. 

Anthony Manquero died at the scene. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Defendant Ametek’s corporate predecessor,

Valley Foundry and Machine Works, designed, manufactured, and

installed the auger in question. 

2. Whether the auger was manufactured, designed and

marketed with reasonable care. 

3. Whether the auger was free from manufacturing or

design defects and had adequate warnings. 

4. Whether the design of the auger system was a

substantial factor in causing decedent’s death.

5. Whether the auger system was in the same condition

as when it left the manufacturer. 

6. Whether the auger system was being used with

reasonable care by decedent and others, and in the manner

intended by the manufacturer. 

7. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ damages. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 4 of 11
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 parties agree that the substantive law of the

State of California provides the rule of decision in this

diversity action. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are in dispute. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. Since the parties have not been able to definitively

identify the manufacturer of the subject auger or auger system as

of this time, the parties have agreed that the first round of

discovery should concern (1) an attempt to identify the actual

manufacturer of the auger and auger system, and (2) discovery

designed to establish factually how the accident happened. The

parties will agree on a first round discovery schedule within the

next thirty (30) days, which may involve a site inspection at the

location of the accident, document requests or record subpoenas

from O’Neill Vintners, depositions of decedent’s co-employees who

were witnesses to the accident, and depositions of other

5

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 5 of 11
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

individuals who may have knowledge as to the manufacturer which

designed and manufactured the subject auger and auger system.

2. The parties request that the Court schedule a second

Joint Scheduling Conference within 60-90 days for the parties to

report on the result of this first round of discovery and to

propose a discovery and trial schedule for the Court’s

consideration and approval. 

3. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before July 1, 2011.

4. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before July 11, 2011. Any rebuttal

or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before

August 10, 2011. The parties will comply with the provisions of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

5. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including experts, on or before September 9, 2011.

6. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

6

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 6 of 11
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

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before September 26, 2011,

and heard on October 28, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Sheila K. Oberto in Courtroom 8. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than October 10, 2011, and will be heard on

November 21, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. January 9, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

///

7

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 7 of 11
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

XII. Motions - Hard Copy.

1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

the Court of any motions filed. Exhibits shall be marked with

protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily

identify such exhibits. 

XIII. Trial Date.

1. February 28, 2012, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 16 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIV. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for December 7,

2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Sheila K.

Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

8

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 8 of 11
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

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

9

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 9 of 11
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

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XVI. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVII. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVIII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

10

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 10 of 11
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

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

Case 1:10-cv-00304-OWW -SKO Document 13 Filed 07/01/10 Page 11 of 11