1 ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 2 Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com FRANK A. TODDRE, II 3 Nevada Bar No. 11474 Frank.Toddre@lewisbrisbois.com 4 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMTH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 702.893.3383 6 FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant 7 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 *** 11 GINA CASTRONOVO-FLIHAN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-1197-JCM-DJA 12 Plaintiff, 13 JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER vs. 14 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 15 INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign company; AND DOES I through V, inclusive 16 Defendants. 17 18 Following pretrial proceedings in this case, pursuant to Local Rule 16-3 and 16-4, IT IS SO 19 ORDERED: 20 I. STATEMENT OF ACTION 21 This is an action for Breach of Contract under Nevada’s common law. While the complaint 22 originally held causes of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and for 23 violations of NRS § 686A.310, those causes of action were dismissed by a Partial Motion for 24 Summary Judgement granted by this Court.1 25 The issues for trial are the allegations of State Farm’s unreasonable and improper conduct 26 27 1 1 in breaching the insurance policy with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s damages, if any. 2 A. Plaintiff’s Contentions 3 1. Plaintiff performed all conditions of the insurance policy. 4 2. Plaintiff was owed benefits under the insurance policy. 5 3. Defendant failed to provide the insurance benefits due and owing under the 6 insurance policy. 7 4. Defendant breached the insurance policy by manufacturing reasons to deny 8 the insurance benefits due and owing to Plaintiff under the insurance policy. 9 5. Defendant breached the insurance policy by making the claims process an 10 adversarial or competitive process. 11 6. Defendant breached the insurance policy by relying upon insufficient, 12 speculative and/or biased information. 13 7. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to acknowledge and act 14 reasonable upon communication with respect to Plaintiff’s claim under the insurance policy. 15 8. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to adopt and implement 16 reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims. 17 9. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to promptly equate and 18 communicate the evaluations to Plaintiff. 19 10. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer to Plaintiff what 20 was owed. 21 11. Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to communicate with 22 Plaintiff and perform an investigation as to her general damages for the evaluation. 23 12. Defendant breached the insurance policy by reducing Plaintiff’s claim by 24 improperly basing her claim upon Medicare values for medical treatment through a claims software 25 system. 26 13. Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying Plaintiff’s claim for the 27 full policy limits. 1 Plaintiff. 2 15. Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its investigation and 3 evaluation of the claim. 4 16. Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying the claim before 5 completing an evaluation. 6 17. Defendant breached the insurance policy by training its adjusters to deny 7 benefits by making unreasonably low offers that are below the evaluations. 8 18. Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to communicate its 9 evaluation to Plaintiff. 10 19. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to provide an explanation 11 of its offer and evaluation to Plaintiff. 12 20. Defendant breached the insurance policy by misrepresenting and improperly 13 asserting that the in-person meeting between its adjuster and Plaintiff has to take place in a public 14 library. 15 21. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider the new 16 information of Plaintiff’s general damages after the in-person interview and increase the value of 17 Plaintiff’s claim. 18 22. Defendant breached its promise for the bargain that when the insured, 19 Plaintiff, was in need, Defendant, as the insurance company, will be there to help like a Good 20 Neighbor. 21 23. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to pay Plaintiff a portion 22 of the policy benefits commonly known as the impasse payment or undisputed amount. 23 24. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full value of 24 the evaluations for the owed policy benefits. 25 25. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give equal 26 considerations to Plaintiff. 27 26. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to comply with policies 1 27. Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its retention of 2 experts. 3 28. Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to consider all of 4 Plaintiff’s medical expenses without any medical expert opinion and/or notations in the claim file 5 as to the basis for the denial. 6 29. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider any future 7 general damages. 8 30. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to handle the claim in 9 accordance with its own policies and procedures. 10 31. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full authority 11 for the benefits owed to Plaintiff. 12 32. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give a prompt and 13 forthright explanation to Plaintiff as to the company’s position with respect to the claim. 14 33. Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to conduct a diligent 15 search for facts as promptly as possible. 16 34. Defendant breached the insurance policy by creating false or fictitious issues 17 to avoid providing and/or paying benefits due and owing to Plaintiff. 18 35. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the services of an attorney in prosecution 19 of the Complaint, incurring expensive legal fees, court costs, and for fees for other professionals for 20 which Defendant is responsible 21 B. Defendants’ Contentions 22 Defendant contends that they did not breach the subject insurance policy contract, Policy 23 Number #136 2037-F22-28. 24 More specifically, Defendant contends the following: 25 1. Prior to the subject accident in 2019, Plaintiff experienced a separate motor 26 vehicle accident related injury when she was rear-ended in March 2017, and experienced neck pain 27 radiating to her arms, shoulder pain, headaches, and low back pain radiating to her legs. 1 under Farmer’s Insurance. 2 3. Plaintiff Castronovo-Flihan’s complaint fails to state a cause of action against 3 these answering defendants upon which relief can be granted. 4 4. Plaintiff Castronovo-Flihan did not fulfill her duty to cooperate with 5 Defendant State Farm under the terms of the subject policy. 6 5. Defendant State Farm did not breach the terms of the subject policy, but 7 instead simply requested a medical examination, as allowed under the terms of the subject policy, 8 §6(a)(2). 9 6. Plaintiff’s remaining damages, if any, were actually and proximately caused 10 by her prior 2017 Motor Vehicle Accident. 11 7. The valuation of the claim by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 12 Company was reasonable. 13 8. Defendant State Farm complied with the terms of the subject policy, case law, 14 and Nevada statutes. 15 9. If any damages are proven in this case, the basis of those damages lies only 16 with the breach of contract claim. 17 10. State Farm generally denies Plaintiff’s allegations set forth herein, and 18 incorporates by reference the denials set forth in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on 19 file with the Court in this matter and raise the following affirmative defenses: 20 (a) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 21 (b) Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. 22 (c) The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were not caused 23 by any breach of contract or duty by Defendant State Farm Mutual 24 Automobile Insurance Company, but rather by the acts or omissions 25 of third persons who were not acting on behalf of Defendant State 26 Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 27 (d) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is 1 that the complaint, and each and every purported claim for relief in 2 said Complaint, is subject to all the terms, conditions, provisions, 3 definitions, limitations, exclusions, and endorsements in the subject 4 insurance policy. Plaintiff’s claim is barred, excluded, restricted, 5 and/or limited accordingly. 6 (e) Plaintiff has failed to satisfy one or more conditions precedent and 7 required under the subject insurance policy upon which she seeks 8 recovery. 9 (f) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has 10 acted reasonably in good faith in all aspects under the circumstances 11 known to it and continues to do so. 12 (g) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has 13 fulfilled its obligations under the subject policy, and that all actions it 14 has taken relevant to Plaintiff’s claim have been accomplished in 15 good faith. 16 (h) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company did 17 not violate any duty owed to Plaintiff under the common law, 18 contract, or statute. 19 (i) The damages claimed by Plaintiff, if any, are speculative, are not 20 supported by proof, and thus not compensable as a matter of law. 21 (j) The damages claimed by Plaintiff were not proximately caused in full 22 by the accident described in the complaint. 23 (k) This suit is not ripe as Plaintiff has failed to establish a claim of legal 24 entitlement under the terms of the policy of insurance. 25 (l) Any verdict against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile 26 Insurance Company must be apportioned between injuries directly 27 caused by the accident described in the Complaint and other medical 1 subsequent to said accident. 2 (m) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is 3 entitled to offset any amounts paid to Plaintiff for damages allegedly 4 sustained in this action, including any amounts paid by or on behalf 5 of any other insurer or responsible party, against any amounts that 6 may be owed by Defendant to Plaintiff. Further, Defendant is allowed 7 to offset additional amounts to the total value of Plaintiff’s claim in 8 accordance with the subject insurance policy terms and/or Nevada 9 law. 10 (n) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has 11 been forced to retain the services of an attorney in defense of the 12 Complaint, incurring expensive legal fees, court costs, and for fees 13 for other professionals for which plaintiff is responsible. 14 (o) Defendant hereby incorporates by reference those affirmative 15 defenses listed in FRCP 12(b). 16 (p) Plaintiff lacks legal entitlement to recover her claim as contemplated 17 by the Nevada Supreme Court in Pemberton v. Farmers Insurance 18 Exchange, 109 Nev. 789, P.2d 380 (1993). 19 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 20 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff Gina Castronovo-Flihan 21 is a resident of the State of Nevada. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 22 is a foreign entity incorporated in Illinois, with its principle place of business in Illinois, that is 23 authorized to conduct business in the State of Nevada. Further, Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of 24 $75,000, and therefore both requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 1332 are met. The parties do not dispute the jurisdiction of this Court. 26 III. ADMITTED FACTS 27 A. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof 1 Baculao-Bacon, crashing into the driver’s side of Plaintiff’s vehicle at a high rate of speed. 2 2. State Farm determined that Mr. Baculao-Bacon is 100% at fault for the 3 subject collision, with Plaintiff Gina Castronovo-Flihan at 0% fault. 4 3. Said third-party tortfeasor, Mr. Bacon, was insured under a liability policy 5 under Farmer’s Insurance. 6 4. Farmer’s Insurance paid Plaintiff Gina Castronovo-Flihan the policy limits 7 of $50,000.00 on or about May 16, 2019. 8 5. This action arises out of an insurance dispute following an automobile 9 accident. 10 6. At the time of the subject collision, January 23, 2019, Plaintiff Gina 11 Castronovo-Flihan held a State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company auto insurance policy, 12 policy number 136 2037-F22-28. 13 7. This policy, policy number 136 2037-F22-28, had underinsured motorist 14 benefits of $100,000 policy limit per person, and a $300,000 policy limit per incident. 15 8. Defendant has not paid any portion of the policy benefits to Plaintiff. 16 9. Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries as a result of the subject collision on January 17 23, 2019. 18 IV. UNCONTESTED FACTS 19 A. The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary 20 21 1. After plaintiff submitted her proof of claim and provided medical records, 22 defendant sent her a letter communicating its refusal to evaluate the claim until it received proof of 23 third-party policy limits. 24 2. Plaintiff supplemented her proof of claim with evidence that the underlying 25 tortfeasor’s policy limits were exhausted. 26 3. Defendant offered Plaintiff $6,333.32 on September 24, 2019 to settle her 27 claim. 1 20, 2019 after months of Plaintiff requesting the same. 2 V. ISSUES OF FACT FOR TRIAL 3 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial 4 A. Plaintiff’s Issues of Fact for Trial 5 1. Whether Defendant failed to provide the insurance benefits due and owing 6 under the insurance policy. 7 2. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by manufacturing reasons 8 to deny the insurance benefits due and owing to Plaintiff under the insurance policy. 9 3. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by making the claims 10 process an adversarial or competitive process. 11 4. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to acknowledge 12 and act reasonable upon communication with respect to Plaintiff’s claim under the insurance policy. 13 5. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to adopt and 14 implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims. 15 6. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to promptly 16 equate and communicate the evaluations to Plaintiff. 17 7. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer to 18 Plaintiff what was owed. 19 8. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to 20 communicate with Plaintiff and perform an investigation as to her general damages for the 21 evaluation. 22 9. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by reducing Plaintiff’s 23 claim by improperly basing her claim upon Medicare values for medical treatment through a claims 24 software system. 25 10. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying Plaintiff’s 26 claim for the full policy limits. 27 11. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by making 1 12. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its 2 investigation and evaluation of the claim. 3 13. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying the claim 4 before completing an evaluation. 5 14. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by training its adjusters to 6 deny benefits by making low-ball offers that are below the evaluations. 7 15. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to 8 communicate its evaluation to Plaintiff. 9 16. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to provide an 10 explanation of its offer and evaluation to Plaintiff. 11 17. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by misrepresenting and 12 improperly asserting that the in-person meeting between its adjuster and Plaintiff has to take place 13 in a public library. 14 18. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider the 15 new information of Plaintiff’s general damages after the in-person interview and increase the value 16 of Plaintiff’s claim. 17 19. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to pay Plaintiff 18 a portion of the policy benefits commonly known as the impasse payment or undisputed amount. 19 20. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full 20 value of the evaluations for the owed policy benefits. 21 21. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give equal 22 considerations to Plaintiff. 23 22. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to comply with 24 policies and procedures in retaining medical experts. 25 23. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its retention 26 of experts. 27 24. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to consider all 1 as to the basis for the denial. 2 25. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider 3 future general damages. 4 26. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to handle the 5 claim in accordance with its own policies and procedures. 6 27. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full 7 authority for the benefits owed to Plaintiff. 8 28. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to pay the 9 benefits due and owing to Plaintiff. 10 29. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by relying upon 11 insufficient, speculative and/or biased information. 12 30. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give a prompt 13 and forthright explanation to Plaintiff as to the company’s position with respect to the claim. 14 31. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to conduct a 15 diligent search for facts as promptly as possible. 16 32. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by creating false or 17 fictitious issues to avoid providing and/or paying benefits due and owing to Plaintiff. 18 33. Whether Defendant breached its promise for the bargain that when the 19 insured, Plaintiff, was in need, Defendant, as the insurance company, will be there to help like a 20 Good Neighbor. 21 34. The damages suffered by Plaintiff. 22 B. Defendant’s Issues of Fact for Trial 23 1. Whether or not Plaintiff’s medical bills incurred after the January 23, 2019, 24 subject accident were reasonably related to said subject motor vehicle 25 accident. 26 2. Whether or not Plaintiff’s medical bills incurred after the subject accident 27 were more reasonably related to Plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident in May 1 3. Whether or not Plaintiff’s medical bills incurred were reasonable in scope to 2 the injury occurred. 3 VI. ISSUES OF LAW FOR TRIAL 4 The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial: 5 A. Plaintiff’s Issues of Law for Trial 6 1. Whether Defendant failed to provide the insurance benefits due and owing 7 under the insurance policy. 8 2. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by manufacturing reasons 9 to deny the insurance benefits due and owing to Plaintiff under the insurance policy. 10 3. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by making the claims 11 process an adversarial or competitive process. 12 4. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to acknowledge 13 and act reasonable upon communication with respect to Plaintiff’s claim under the insurance policy. 14 5. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to adopt and 15 implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims. 16 6. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to promptly 17 equate and communicate the evaluations to Plaintiff. 18 7. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer to 19 Plaintiff what was owed. 20 8. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to 21 communicate with Plaintiff and perform an investigation as to her general damages for the 22 evaluation. 23 9. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by reducing Plaintiff’s 24 claim by improperly basing her claim upon Medicare values for medical treatment through a claims 25 software system. 26 10. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying Plaintiff’s 27 claim for the full policy limits. 1 misrepresentations to Plaintiff. 2 12. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its 3 investigation and evaluation of the claim. 4 13. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by denying the claim 5 before completing an evaluation. 6 14. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by training its adjusters to 7 deny benefits by making low-ball offers that are below the evaluations. 8 15. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by refusing to 9 communicate its evaluation to Plaintiff. 10 16. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to provide an 11 explanation of its offer and evaluation to Plaintiff. 12 17. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by misrepresenting and 13 improperly asserting that the in-person meeting between its adjuster and Plaintiff has to take place 14 in a public library. 15 18. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider the 16 new information of Plaintiff’s general damages after the in-person interview and increase the value 17 of Plaintiff’s claim. 18 19. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to pay Plaintiff 19 a portion of the policy benefits commonly known as the impasse payment or undisputed amount. 20 20. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full 21 value of the evaluations for the owed policy benefits. 22 21. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give equal 23 considerations to Plaintiff. 24 22. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to comply with 25 policies and procedures in retaining medical experts. 26 23. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by delaying in its retention 27 of experts. 1 of Plaintiff’s medical expenses without any medical expert opinion and/or notations in the claim file 2 as to the basis for the denial. 3 25. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to consider 4 future general damages. 5 26. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to handle the 6 claim in accordance with its own policies and procedures. 7 27. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to offer the full 8 authority for the benefits owed to Plaintiff. 9 28. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to pay the 10 benefits due and owing to Plaintiff. 11 29. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by relying upon 12 insufficient, speculative and/or biased information. 13 30. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to give a prompt 14 and forthright explanation to Plaintiff as to the company’s position with respect to the claim. 15 31. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by failing to conduct a 16 diligent search for facts as promptly as possible. 17 32. Whether Defendant breached the insurance policy by creating false or 18 fictitious issues to avoid providing and/or paying benefits due and owing to Plaintiff. 19 33. Whether Defendant breached its promise for the bargain that when the 20 insured, Plaintiff, was in need, Defendant, as the insurance company, will be there to help like a 21 Good Neighbor. 22 34. The damages suffered by Plaintiff. 23 35. Any issue of fact set forth above which is more properly regarded as an issue 24 of law. 25 B. Defendant’s Issues of Law for Trial 26 1. Whether Plaintiff’s claim for Breach of Contract has any merit. 27 2. The legal propriety of remedies, including damages, equitable relief, interest, 1 the jury’s verdict. 2 3. Whether or not Plaintiff fulfilled her duty to cooperate with State Farm under 3 the terms of the subject policy. 4 4. Any issue of fact set forth above which is more properly regarded as an issue 5 of law. 6 VII. EVIDENCE 7 A. The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by the clerk 8 9 (a) Traffic Accident Report: PLT ECC 0069-0076; 10 (b) Photos of Collision: PLT ECC 0077-0080; 11 (c) Redacted Non-Confidential Certified Policy: SF POL 1-60 12 (d) Redacted Non-Confidential State Farm Claim File: SF 1–1746 13 (e) State Farm Claim Notes: SF 1-242 14 (f) Claims Correspondence: PLT ECC 0081-2288 15 (g) State Farm Auto Injury Evaluation: SF 181-187 16 (h) Non-Confidential Portions of State Farm Auto Claim Manual: 17 CASGIN00000001PROD - CASGIN00000030PROD 18 (i) Non-Confidential Portions of State Farm Employees Education and 19 Training: CASGIN00000031PROD - CASGIN00000033PROD 20 (j) Non-Confidential State Farm Materials: PLT DOEW 0137-0227 21 (k) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from American Medical 22 Responses: PLT ECC 2289-2297 23 (l) Redacted Medical Bill from Vituity NV Koury Partners PLLC 24 (records included in St. Rose Dominican Hospital Records): PLT 25 ECC 2298-2299 26 (m) Redacted Radiology Associates of Nevada Bill (records included in 27 St. Rose Dominican Hospital Records): PLT ECC 2300-2301 1 Dominican Hospital-San Martin Campus (Imaging Produced on CD): 2 PLT ECC 2302-2321; PLT 1ST 001-145 3 (o) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from FYZICAL Therapy and 4 Balance Centers: PLT ECC 2322-2348 5 (p) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Well Care Medical Group, 6 LLC-Bellavue Medical: PLT ECC 2349-2387; PLT 1ST 146-200; 7 PLT 2nd 001-003 8 (q) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from SimonMed (imaging 9 produced on CD): PLT ECC 2388-2411; PLT 1ST 201-232; PLT 3RD 10 001 11 (r) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Neurocare of Nevada: PLT 12 ECC 2412-2516; PLT 1ST 233-344 13 (s) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Desert Orthopedic Center: 14 PLT ECC 2517-2545 15 (t) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Las Vegas Fire & Rescue: 16 PLT ECC 2546-2559 17 (u) Redacted Bills from Shadow Emergency Physicians (records 18 included in Summerlin Hospital Records): PLT ECC 2560-2565 19 (v) Redacted Bills from Desert Radiologists (records included in 20 Summerlin Hospital records): PLT ECC 2566-2568 21 (w) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Summerlin Hospital: 22 PLTECC 2569-2658 23 (x) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Siems Lasik & Eye 24 Centers: PLT ECC 2659-2661 25 (y) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Cardiology & 26 Cardiovascular Consultants: PLT ECC 2662-2713 27 (z) Redacted Medial Records and Bills from CVS Pharmacy: PLT ECC 1 (aa) Redacted Medical Record from Clark County Fire Dept: PLT 1ST 245- 2 350 3 (bb) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Summerlin Hospital 4 Outpatient Therapy Center: PLT 1ST 351-469 5 (cc) Redacted Medical Records and Bills from Southwest Medical 6 Associates Butler Family Medical Center: PLT 1ST 470-509 7 (dd) Redacted Medical Records and Bills for Las Vegas Radiology: PLT 8 1ST 510-522 9 (ee) Medical Records & Bills from Gobinder Chopra, M.D.: SF 1747- 10 1860 11 (ff) Medical Records & Bills from Las Vegas Radiology: SF 1861-1873 12 (gg) Medical Records & Bills from SimonMed: SF 1874-1922 13 (hh) Medical Records from St. Rose Dominican Hospital: SF 1923-2057 14 (ii) Medical Records from CVS Pharmacy: SF 2058-2062 15 (jj) Medical Records & Bills from Desert Orthopedic Center: SF 2063- 16 2177 17 (kk) Medical Records from Southwest Medical Associates: SF 2178-2193 18 (ll) Medical Records & Bills from Summerlin Hospital: SF 2194-2404 19 (mm) All exhibit listed by either Party 20 (nn) All documents identified during discovery 21 (oo) Responses to Interrogatories 22 (pp) Requests to Requests for Production 23 (qq) Requests to Requests for Admission 24 (rr) Rebuttal and/or impeachment documents 25 B. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objections to their admission on the grounds stated 26 27 1. Set forth the Plaintiff’s exhibits and objections to them. 1 C. Electronic evidence 2 N/A. 3 D. Depositions 4 1. Plaintiff will offer the following depositions: None. 5 2. Defendant will offer the following depositions: None. 6 E. Objections to Depositions 7 1. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s depositions as follows: None. 8 2. Plaintiff objects to defendant’s depositions as follows: None. 9 VIII. WITNESSES 10 A. Plaintiff’s Witnesses 11 1. Plaintiff Gina Castronovo-Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 12 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 14 2. James Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 15 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 16 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 17 3. Jimmy Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 18 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 19 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 20 4. Brandon Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 21 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 22 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 23 5. Fred Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 24 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 25 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 26 27 / / / / / / 1 6. Arletia Marshall Claims Specialist 2 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 3 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 4 7. Michele Maglione 5 Mobile Adjuster State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 6 c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 8 8. Jake Geddes Team Manager 9 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 10 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 11 9. Jason Snyder 12 Team Manager State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 13 c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 15 10. FRCP 30(b)(6) witness for: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 16 c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 18 B. Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses 19 1. Enrico Fazzini, D.O., Ph.D., F.A.C.N. 291 N. Pecos Road 20 Henderson, NV 89704 21 2. Christopher Platt, PT, DPT C/O FYSICAL Therapy & Balance Centers 22 9070 W. Cheyenne Ave. Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89129 23 3. Rafael Mirchou, MD, FABS 24 C/O Well CareMedical Group LLC, Bellavue Medical 7488 West Sahara Avenue 25 Las Vegas, NV (702) 641-1240 26 4. Gobinder S. Chopra, MD 27 C/O Neurocare of Nevada 6410 Medical Center, Suite A-100 1 5. Thomas Dunn, MD C/O Desert Orthopedic Center 2 2800 E. Desert Inn Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89121 3 6. Christine Derhake, PT, DPT 4 C/O Summerlin Hospital Outpatient Therapy Center 657 Town Center Dr., Suite 117 5 Las Vegas, NV 89144 6 7. Stephen Strzelec C/O Strzelec Consulting Services 7 20719 NE 8th St. Sammamish, WA 98074 8 8. All witnesses identified by any other party to this case. 9 9. Any and all custodians of record and/or persons most knowledgeable of any 10 and all entities from which records may be obtained, including, but not limited to, 11 employers, schools, government agencies, private entities, and/or insurance 12 companies. 13 10. Any and all witnesses, including rebuttal or impeachment witnesses, offered 14 by the Plaintiffs or other parties to this action. 15 11. The parties reserve the right to object to any witness identified by either party. 16 C. Defendant’s Possible Witnesses 17 1. Gina Castronovo-Flihan 18 c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. McMenemy Holmes PLLC 19 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 20 2. James Flihan 21 c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. McMenemy Holmes PLLC 22 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 23 3. Jimmy Flihan 24 c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. McMenemy Holmes PLLC 25 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 26 27 / / / 1 4. Brandon Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 2 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 4 5. Fred Flihan c/o Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. 5 McMenemy Holmes PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 6 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 7 6. Arletia Marshall Claims Specialist 8 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 9 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 10 7. Michele Maglione 11 Mobile Adjuster State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 12 c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 14 8. Jake Geddes Team Manager 15 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 16 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 17 9. Jason Snyder 18 Team Manager State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 19 c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 20 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 21 10. Enrico Fazzini, D.O., Ph.D., F.A.C.N. 291 N. Pecos Road 22 Henderson, NV 89704 23 11. Christopher Platt, PT, DPT C/O FYSICAL Therapy & Balance Centers 24 9070 W. Cheyenne Ave. Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89129 25 12. Rafael Mirchou, MD, FABS 26 C/O Well CareMedical Group LLC, Bellavue Medical 7488 West Sahara Avenue 27 Las Vegas, NV (702) 641-1240 1 13. Gobinder S. Chopra, MD C/O Neurocare of Nevada 2 6410 Medical Center, Suite A-100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 3 14. Thomas Dunn, MD 4 C/O Desert Orthopedic Center 2800 E. Desert Inn Road, Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, NV 89121 6 15. Christine Derhake, PT, DPT C/O Summerlin Hospital Outpatient Therapy Center 7 657 Town Center Dr., Suite 117 Las Vegas, NV 89144 8 16. FRCP 30(b)(6) witness for: 9 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP. 10 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 11 17. Caleb Myers 12 Messner Reeves, LLP 8945 W Russell Rd. #300 13 Las Vegas, NV 89148 14 18. Brock Ohlson, Esq. Brock Ohlson Injury Lawyers 15 6060 Elton Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 16 D. Defendant’s Expert Witnesses 17 1. Andrew Cash, M.D., P.C. 18 Desert Institute of Spine Care 5130 S. Ft. Apache Rd., Box 215-415 19 Las Vegas, NV 89148 20 2. Mark Winkler, M.D. 8 Morning Sky Lane 21 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 22 3. David L. Ginsburg, M.D. 851 S. Rampart Boulevard, Suite 115 23 Las Vegas, NV 89145 24 4. Edward McKinnon Claims Resource Management Inc. 25 33345 Santiago Rd. Acton, CA 93510 26 5. All witnesses identified by any other party to this case. 27 6. Any and all custodians of record and/or persons most knowledgeable of any 1 and all entities from which records may be obtained, including, but not limited to, 2 employers, schools, government agencies, private entities, and/or insurance 3 companies. 4 7. Any and all witnesses, including rebuttal or impeachment witnesses, offered 5 by the Plaintiffs or other parties to this action. 6 8. The parties reserve the right to object to any witness identified by either party. 7 IX. PROPOSED TRIAL DATES 8 Counsel have met and submitted a list of three agreed-upon trial dates. It is expressly 9 understood by the undersigned that the Clerk will set the trial of this matter on one of the agreed- 10 upon dates, if possible, if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the Court’s calendar: 11 PARTIES REQUEST: The Attorneys or parties have met and jointly offer these trial dates: 12 1. 01/16/2024 2. 01/22/2024 3. 02/05/2024 13 It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the court will set the trial of this matter on 14 one of the agreed upon dates if possible, if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the court’s 15 calendar. 16 X. PROPOSED TRIAL DURATION 17 It is estimated that the trial herein will take a total of 10-12 days. 18 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT. 19 DATED this 13th day of November, 2023 DATED this 13th day of November, 2023 20 MCMENEMY | HOLMES PLLC LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 21 By: /s/ Ian M. McMenemy By: /s/ Frank A. Toddre, II 22 Ian M. McMenemy, Esq. Robert W. Freeman, Esq. 23 Nevada Bar No. 13190 Nevada Bar No. 3062 Dustun H. Holmes, Esq. Frank A. Toddre, II 24 Nevada Bar No. 12776 Nevada Bar No. 11474 1645 Village Center Cir., Ste 291 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd, Suite 600 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 26 / / / 27 / / / ACTION BY THE COURT 2 (a) This case is set for court/jury trial on the stacked calendar on 3 || February 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Calendar Call shall be held on January 31, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. 4 (b) An original and two (2) copies of each trial brief shall be submitted to the clerk on 5 || or before Calendar Call. 6 (c) Jury Trials: 7 (1) An original and two (2) copies of all instructions requested by either party § || shall be submitted to the clerk for filing on or before: Calendar Call., 9 (2) An original and two (2) copies of all suggested questions of the parties to be 10 || asked of the jury panel by the Court on voir dire shall be submitted to the clerk for filing on o 11 || before: Calendar Call. 12 (d) Court Trials: 13 Not applicable. 14 (e) Counsel shall serve a copy of any trial brief, proposed findings of fact and 15 || conclusions of law, proposed voir dire questions, and proposed jury instructions upon opposing 16 || counsel contemporaneously with the filing thereof with the Court. 17 The foregoing pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by 18 || the signatures of their counsel hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will govern the trial of 19 || this case. This order shall not be amended except by order of the Court pursuant to agreement of 20 || the parties or to prevent manifest injustice. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED: 7 DATED November 20, 2023. 23 Pius ©. Ataltan 44 ~ UNIWED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 25 26 27