The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
This is a complex medical malpractice and birth injury action, involving numerous issues pertaining to prenatal and neonatal care, with allegations of catastrophic injury. Indeed, this action involves three distinct plaintiffs, comprised of the infant and his two adult parents, each of whom has claims which will require extensive work-up for purposes of evaluation and trial preparation. Given the nature of the allegations, it is expected that plaintiffs will be claiming several million dollars in damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
However, while defendants have acted expeditiously in recognition of the complexity of the issues presented in this matter, their efforts to do so have been severely impeded by these same plaintiffs who are now seeking a preferential trial setting. Indeed, despite the fact that these responding defendants served initial written discovery on February 27, 2002, to date, nearly four months later, plaintiffs have failed to provide any responses thereto. Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to respond to discovery has required defendants to file Motions to Compel.
(Responding defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, and a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Request for Production of Documents. These Motions are scheduled for hearing in this Court on July 17, 2002.) Unlike plaintiffs, these responding defendants have promptly and timely responded to all discovery propounded by plaintiffs.
Hence, plaintiffs have had sufficient time to propound discovery, prepare the subject motion for trial preference and, based on recent representations, prepare a motion for leave to amend their complaint for punitive damages. However, as noted above, they have failed to provide responses to the most basic discovery, despite being provided with a number of extensions to do so. Responses to the subject discovery were due on or before April 4, 2002. However, plaintiffs’ counsel requested, and was granted, an extension of time in which to provide responses until May 1, 2002. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.