The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021CV30429 - JAMES M. BELL-AVERA V. KARL L. ROHR and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 019 - PROPOSED CASE MAANGEMENT ORDER TRR EDITS Page 1 of 5 JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER, COLORADO Court Address: Larimer County Justice Center 201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 COURT USE ONLY JAMES M BELL AVERA Plaintiff, v. KARL L ROHR et al, Defendants. Case Number: 2021CV030429 Courtroom: 5A PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The case management conference is set for November 8th at 8:30 am. 1. The “at issue date” is: September 24, 2021 2. Responsible attorney’s name, address, phone number and email address: Attorneys for Plaintiff: Theodore R. Ridder, #43755 Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, Colorado 80014 Phone Number: (303) 757-3300 Fax Number: (303) 759-5203 E-Mail: riddert@fdazar.com Attorneys for Defendants Karl Rohr and the City of Fort Collins: Andrew W. Callahan, #52421 – acallahan@wicklaw.com Julie M. Yates, #36393 – jyates@wicklaw.com WICK & TRAUTWEIN, LLC 323 South College Avenue, Suite 3 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone & Fax: (970) 482-4011 John R. Duval, #10185 – jduval@fcgov.com Adam Stephens, #55637 – adstephens@fcgov.com Fort Collins City Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 221-6520 Page 2 of 5 JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3. The lead counsel for each party, Theodore Ridder and Andrew Callahan met and conferred in person or by telephone concerning this Proposed Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E) on October 13, 2021. 4. Brief description of the case and identification of the issues to be tried (not more than one page, double- spaced, for each side): a. Plaintiff’s Statement of Claims: Plaintiff brings this case for personal injuries arising out of a Fort Collins City Bus crash. Mr. Bell-Avera was a passenger on a bus when the bus driver allegedly lost control of the bus and ran the bus off the road and crashing into a tree. The bus was owned by the City of Fort Collins and the bus driver was acting within the course and scope of employment with the City when the crash occurred. The City alleged that a bolt came loose from the steering column causing the driving to lose control. Plaintiff suffered injuries, damages and losses as a result of the crash including fractured vertebra in his upper back. Plaintiff brings claims for negligence against the City of Fort Collins and driver of the bus, Mr. Rohr, for negligence and negligence per se, and claims against the City of Fort Collins for negligent maintenance. b. Defendant: Defendants admit that the bus at issue was owned by the City of Fort Collins and the bus driver was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the City when the crash occurred. Defendants deny that Defendant Karl Rohr was negligent in the operation of the bus and deny that the City of Fort Collins was negligent in maintaining the bus at issue. Defendants further deny that the Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of this incident. The issues to be tried include whether or not Defendants were negligent in the operation and maintenance of the bus, and whether Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the incident. 5. The following motions have been filed and are unresolved: None at this time. 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): At this time, Plaintiff is not opposed to any limitations outlined by Rule 26 and believes the presumptive discovery limitations are appropriate based on the issues raised in this lawsuit. 7. The lead counsel for each party, met and conferred concerning possible settlement. The prospects for settlement are: unknown. 8. Deadlines for: a. Amending or supplementing pleadings: January 7, 2022 b. Joinder of additional parties: January 7, 2021 c. Identifying non-parties at fault: September 9, 2021 9. Dates of initial disclosures: PLAINTIFF: anticipates filing on November 4, 2021 Page 3 of 5 JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DEFENDANT: anticipates filing on November 4, 2021 Objections, if any, about their adequacy: N/A 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, and completion of discovery on damages: _________________________________________________________________ 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): The parties to not believe modifications to the default limitations are necessary. Number of depositions per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(A) limit 1 of adverse par ty + 2 others + experts per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)): Within the limits of the rule. Number of interrogatories per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(B) limit of 30): 30 Number of requests for production of documents per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(D) limit of 20): 20 Number of requests for admission per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(E) limit of 20): 20 Any physical or mental examination per C.R.C.P. 35: Plaintiff reserves the right to request conditions on any examination including, at a minimum, to audio record the examination. Additionally, as required under the rules regarding expert disclosures, Plaintiff requests disclosure of any financial relationship between any C.R.C.P. Rule 35 examiner and the attorneys and/or insurance company involved in the case. Any limitations on awardable costs: None State the justifications for any modifications in the foregoing C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2) limitations: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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: Plaintiff anticipates calling his treating medical providers as non-retained experts as per C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) or (B)(II), and retained experts in the areas of standards of maintenance of busses and accident reconstruction. Plaintiff may hire retained experts in the field of economics and/or vocational rehabilitation, and any expert necessary for rebuttal. DEFENDANT: Defendant anticipates requesting a Rule 35 medical exam and may call a retained expert in each field of expertise for which Plaintiff is claiming damages. Plaintiff may also call a retained expert in the areas of standard of care for bus maintenance, and may offer City employees as non-retained experts on this issue. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 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: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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/claimant: 126 days prior to trial ii. Defendant/opposing party: 98 days prior to trial b. production of rebuttal expert reports: 77 days prior to trial c. production of expert witness files: Plaintiff’s position: within 14 days of the production of the expert reports. Defendant’s position: within 7 days of the production of the expert reports. State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C): ______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Oral Discovery Motions. The court does require discovery motions to 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. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 49 days prior to trial Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 4 days. Trial will commence on (or will be set by the court later):. 17. Other appropriate matters for consideration: Classification of Treating Physicians: Defendant’s position is: when a treating physician reviews a Plaintiff’s medical records outside of the scope of that physician’s treatment, and purports to offer opinions on causation, permanency, future treatment or the value of the medical care provided, that physician becomes “specially employed” and thus the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(I) are applicable. ____________________________________________________________________________________ X By checking this box, I am acknowledging I am filling in the blanks and not changing anything else on the form. Page 5 of 5 JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER By checking this box, I am acknowledging that I have made a change to the original content of this form. ____________________________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By:/s/ Theodore R. Ridder . Theodore Ridder, #43755 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Phone Number: (303) 757-3300 Fax Number: (303) 757-3206 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF WICK & TRAUTWEIN, LLC By: s/ Andrew W. Callahan Andrew C. Callahan, #52421 Julie M. Yates, #36393 323 S. College Ave., Ste. 3 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone & Fax: 970-482-4011 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS 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 ______ day of ________________________, 20__. BY THE COURT: __________________________ District Court Judge