The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023CV30993 - Smith-Acree v. City, et al. - 14 - Case Management ORder DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO 201 La Porte Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Plaintiff: MARGARET SMITH-ACREE v. Defendants: CITY OF FORT COLLINS Case No.: 2023-CV-30993 Division: 4A CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby file this Case Management Order. The Case Management Conference will be held on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, at 8:15 a.m. via WebEx: https://judicial.webex.com/webappng/sites/judicial/dashboard/pmr/michelle.brinegar Meeting ID 921 506 804 1. The “at issue date” is March 6, 2024. DATE FILED: May 14, 2024 4:54 PM CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30993 2. Responsible attorney: Attorney for Plaintiff Rick A. Carmickle, Esq., #20742 Geoffrey S. Gulinson & Associates, P.C. 4155 East Jewell Avenue, Suite 402 Denver, CO 80222 Tel: 303-753-0037 rickc@lawofficecolorado.com Attorney for Defendant Andrew W. Callahan, #52421 WICK & TRAUTWEIN, LLC 323 South College Avenue, Suite 3 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone & Fax Number: (970) 482-4011 acallahan@wicklaw.com: jminch@wicklaw.com 3. The lead counsel for each party, Rick A. Carmickle, Esq. for Plaintiff, and Andrew W. Callahan, Esq. for Defendant, conferred concerning this Case Management Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E) on May 2, 2024. 4. Brief description of the case and identification of the issues to be tried: Plaintiff Margaret Smith-Acree: On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff Smith-Acree was a passenger on a bus operated by a Defendant City of Fort Collins employee. Ms. Smith-Acree boarded the bus in a Victory Pride 10, 3-wheel medical mobility scooter. The bus driver improperly secured the scooter for transport, strapping both back security harnesses to the scooter but failing to strap the front right harnesses. Ms. Smith-Acree believed she had been properly secured. As the bus driver was approaching the intersection of Maple Street and North College Avenue, he made a sharp turn with the bus in motion. Ms. Smith-Acree’s mobility scooter tipped over, causing her to fall onto her left side in the bus aisle. Ms. Smith-Acree was unable to get up on her own and was escorted off the bus by the paramedics who transported her to the emergency room at UC Health Poudre Valley. The accident caused her injuries, damages, and losses. Her medical bills to date total $12,320.77. Defendant City of Fort Collins: The City admits that Plaintiff was a passenger on a Transfort bus on December 23, 2020, that was operated by a City employee, and that Plaintiff fell off her mobility scooter while the bus was making a turn. The City denies that it was negligent in restraining the mobility scooter. The City employee restrained the scooter consistent with the written policies and procedures. The City asserts that Plaintiff is comparatively negligent in choosing to ride on her scooter, rather than moving to a seat, by failing to hold onto a hand rail while the bus was making a turn, and for failing to utilize an additional restraint system, even though one was available for her to use. The City further contests the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. 5. The following motions have been filed and are unresolved: None 6. Brief assessment of each party’s position on the application of the proportionality factors, including those listed in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): The parties believe that this case will require discovery allowed under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties and their counsel agree that the general discovery limitations of C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2) regarding written discovery and depositions are sufficient and appropriate in this case and that the costs of the proposed discovery are proportional to the claims in the case. 7. The lead counsel for each party, Rick A. Carmickle for Plaintiff and Andrew W. Callahan for Defendant have conferred concerning possible settlement. The prospects for settlement are hopeful but will require the parties to conduct discovery. The parties will informally discuss settlement prior to scheduling a mediation. 8. Deadlines for: a. Amending or supplementing pleadings (105 days from at issue date): June 19, 2024 b. Joinder of additional parties (105 days from at issue date): June 19, 2024 c. Identifying non-parties at fault (90 days after Complaint filed): March 5, 2024 9. Dates of initial disclosures: Plaintiff: Filed on April 11, 2024 Defendant: Filed on April 5, 2024 Objections, if any, about their adequacy: None currently. 10. If full disclosure of information under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C) was not made because of a party’s inability to provide it, provide a brief statement of reasons for that party’s inability and the expected timing of full disclosures: Not applicable. 11. Proposed limitations on and modifications to the scope and types of discovery, consistent with the proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). a. Number of depositions per party: 3 plus experts (1 for each adverse party + 2 others + experts per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A). b. Number of interrogatories per side: 30 interrogatories c. Number of requests for production of documents per side: 20 requests for production d. Number of requests for admission per side: 20 requests for admission e. Any physical or mental examination per C.R.C.P. 35: Defendant reserves the right to request a physical examination of Plaintiff per C.R.C.P. 35. f. Any limitations on awardable costs: None g. State the justifications for any modifications in the foregoing C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2) limitations: The parties have not modified the Case Management Order. 12. Number of experts, subjects for anticipated expert testimony, and whether experts will be under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) or (B)(II): Plaintiff may disclose medical providers for experts. Defendant may endorse a non-retained expert on the proper policies and procedures for restraining mobility scooters. Defendant may endorse an expert to offer opinions on the nature, extent and causation of Plaintiff’s medical injuries. If more than one expert in any subject per side is anticipated, state the reasons why such expert is appropriate consistent with proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) and any differences among the positions of multiple parties on the same side: The parties do not intend to disclose more than one expert per subject. 13. Proposed deadlines for expert witness disclosure if other than those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2): a. Production of expert reports: i. Plaintiff: August 19, 2024 ii. Defendant: September 16, 2024 iii. Rebuttal: October 7, 2024 b. Production of expert witness files: 7 days after the expert’s disclosures are due State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(as)(2)(c): None 14. Discovery Motions. Oral Discovery Motions. The court requires that discovery motions be presented orally, without written motions or briefs. 15. Electronically Stored Information. The parties do not anticipate needing to discover a significant amount of electronically stored information. 16. Discovery cut-off: November 4, 2024 Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 4 days Trial will not be set until the Court determines that a trial setting is appropriate. 17. Other appropriate matters for consideration: DATED: May 7, 2024 s/ Rick A. Carmickle Rick A. Carmickle, #20742 Geoffrey S. Gulinson & Associates, P.C. 4155 East Jewell Avenue, Suite 402 Denver, CO 80222 Attorneys for Plaintiff s/ Andrew W. Callahan Andrew A. Callahan, #52421 Wick & Trautwein, LLC 323 South College Avenue, Suite 3 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attorneys for Defendant CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing, including any modifications made by the Court, is and shall be the Case Management Order in this case. DATED this 8th day of May, 2024. BY THE COURT: _________________________ C. Michelle Brinegar District Court Judge May 14, 2024 Approved including any changes made at the May 8, 2024 case management conference.