STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Rule 240(b), and the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3), the parties have met and conferred regarding the nature and basis of their claims and defenses; the possibility of promptly settling or resolving this case; the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); preserving discoverable information; and developing a proposed discovery plan. Having so met and conferred,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties and subject to Court approval, that the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order be modified as set forth below:

The parties anticipate that most of the discovery in this case will occur in the related state court action S.A.A.S. v. Dignity Health, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-18-465288. The trial in the state court action is currently set to begin on September 23, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel agrees to serve Defendant's counsel with all discovery that Plaintiff receives or serves in the state court proceeding. The parties agree that depositions taken in the state court action will count toward the one-deposition limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1).

After the state court action is tried or otherwise resolved, the parties anticipate some additional expert discovery specific to the instant federal proceeding. The parties agree that initial expert disclosures shall be served on November 15, 2019, and rebuttal expert disclosures shall be served on January 24, 2020. Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 24, 2020. In the event that no party intends to file a dispositive motion, the parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness no later than 30 days after the close of discovery.

In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3), the parties provide the following additional information for the Court's consideration.

I. Brief Case Summary

Plaintiff S.A.A.S. asserts one claim for wrongful death (medical malpractice) against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. She alleges that health care providers at Community Medical Center ("CMC"), a federally funded clinic in Stockton, California, negligently failed to diagnose her mother with diabetic ketoacidosis on February 6, 2016, and that this failure resulted in her mother's death on February 11, 2016.

II. Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3)

A. Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a)

The parties will serve initial disclosures no later than December 7, 2018. The parties will serve initial expert disclosures no later than November 15, 2019. The parties propose that any rebuttal expert disclosures shall be served no later than January 24, 2020.

B. Subjects and Timing of Discovery

The parties anticipate that the subjects of discovery will include the facts and circumstances of the medical care S.A.A.S.'s mother received from health care providers at St. Joseph's Medical Center and CMC from February 4 to 11, 2016; the applicable standards of professional care; the nature and extent of any wrongful-death damages sustained by S.A.A.S; and the causal connection between any damages sustained by S.A.A.S. and any breach of the applicable standards of professional care. The parties propose a deadline of March 27, 2019, to complete discovery.

C. Electronically Stored Information

The parties do not anticipate discovery of electronically stored information.

D. Protection of Privileges or Trial-Preparation Materials

The parties hereby agree that the scope of discovery shall not include documents prepared by counsel on or after of May 29, 2018, or confidential attorney-client communications occurring on or after May 29, 2018, and that such documents or information shall be deemed non-responsive and may be withheld without the need to assert or interpose an objection or seek a protective order, except as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) for certain communications with or documents provided to testifying experts. The parties further agree that privilege logs need not be produced unless and until requested by counsel in connection with specific objections that have been asserted.

E. Changes in Discovery Limitations

The parties do not propose any changes to the limitations imposed on discovery by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules.

F. Other Orders Concerning Discovery

The parties do not propose any other orders concerning discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.