Dunham v. Najem
- Alex Tse
- 3:18-cv-04467
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dunham v. Najem, Judge Tse granted Dunham’s motion to extend expert-discovery deadlines and set further scheduling steps.
John F. Dunham and the defendants are affected by the extended expert-discovery schedule and the requirement to propose revised deadlines. The order also addresses how the defendants may seek permission to present certain previously unraised defenses.
What happened
In Dunham v. Najem, John F. Dunham asked to extend the deadlines for expert discovery. He said he would not retain a medical expert and would instead rely on testimony from his treating physicians, whose schedules were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court granted the motion and directed the parties to meet and confer about a revised schedule. They had to file their proposal by February 3, 2021, and the court scheduled another case-management conference for February 5, 2021, to address the proposal and trial timing.
The court also addressed whether Dunham could seek damages for physical injuries, including future medical care, if he prevailed. Judge Alex G. Tse cited decisions allowing similar damages and said the defendants’ additional arguments would not be considered in this order; the defendants would need permission to raise previously unpresented defenses in a properly noticed motion.
The detailed version
- Dunham v. Najem · No. 3:18-cv-04467
- Alex Tse
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
John F. Dunham moved to continue the existing expert-discovery deadlines. At the hearing, Dunham confirmed that he would not retain a medical expert to testify at trial. Instead, he planned to rely on testimony from treating physicians. The court noted that this choice gave Dunham less control over the pace of expert discovery because he had to wait for appointments and treatment with medical providers whose schedules were busy and had been further strained by COVID-19.
Ruling on Expert Discovery
The court granted Dunham’s motion to continue the expert-discovery deadlines. To allow the scheduled medical providers to evaluate Dunham, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about a revised schedule and file their proposal by February 3, 2021. The court scheduled a further case-management conference for February 5, 2021, to address the proposed schedule and the timing of trial.
Damages Discussion
The court had also asked whether Dunham could seek damages for physical injuries, including future medical care, under his remaining causes of action. The parties submitted supplemental briefs. The opinion cites decisions recognizing damages for past and future medical expenses and physical injuries in deliberate-indifference, failure-to-train, and First Amendment retaliation cases. The defendants’ supplemental brief also discussed Bivens actions and raised administrative-exhaustion and causation defenses, but the court said those topics were not responsive to its question and would not be considered in this order. The court stated that defendants seeking to pursue legal defenses that had not been waived and had not previously been presented would need to request permission through a properly noticed motion.
Disposition
The order grants the motion to continue expert-discovery deadlines and sets procedures for proposing a revised schedule. Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order on January 22, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.