City v. United States of America
Opinion
United States Attorney District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 R. Thomas Colonna Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6552 Richard.Colonna@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Tameia City, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-02193-JCM-EJY vs. AMENDED JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER The United States of America, Defendant. Emely Johana Portillo, an individual; and Eva Lilian Leonzo De Portillo an individual Plaintiffs, vs. The United States of America, Defendant Comes now Plaintiff Tameia City (“City”), by and through her attorneys Jordan Schnitzer, Esq., and Plaintiffs Emely Johanna Portillo (“Emely Portillo”) and Eva Lilian Leonzo de Portillo (“Eva Portillo”); and Defendant United States of America, by the United States Attorney, submit this proposed Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to the Court’s Order on August 19, 2024, and Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. I. Summary of Action This is a tort action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), wherein Plaintiffs Tameia City and Plaintiffs Emely Johana Portillo and Eva Lilian Leonzo de
Portillo allege they sustained personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on May 7, 2019. II. Statement of Jurisdiction The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction arises under the FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1346 et. seq. Because this is an FTCA case, the Court will be acting as the trier-of-fact. There will be no jury trial in this case. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 1. Plaintiff Tameia City, Defendant’s employee Kyle Loose, and Plaintiffs Emely
Portillo and Eva Portillo, were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about May 7, 2019. 2. At the time of the accident, Mr. Loose was acting in the course and scope of his duties as an employee of the United States. IV. The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: None. V. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial. 1. The duty of care owed and to whom. 2. The actions or inactions taken to constitute a breach of duty of care. 3. The mechanism of the cause of the accident. 4. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City, suffered injury and/or sustained
damages from the accident. 5. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo, suffered injury and/or sustained damages from the accident. 6. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo suffered injury and/or sustained damages from the accident. 7. The extent and quality of Plaintiff City’s pre-existing medical conditions. 8. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s pre-existing medical conditions. 9. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s pre-existing medical conditions. 10. Whether Plaintiff City’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical
conditions that pre-existed the accident. 11. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 12. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 13. Whether Plaintiff City contributed to her own alleged damages. 14. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 15. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 16. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City incurred damages as a proximate cause of the negligence of others. 17. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo incurred damages as a proximate cause of the negligence of others. 18. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo incurred damages as a
proximate cause of the negligence of others. 19. The type and extent of damages claimed for (1) past medical expenses; (2) future medical expenses; (3) pain and suffering; (4) lost wages; (5) property damages; (6) other general and special damages. 20. Whether Plaintiff City’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 21. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 22. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident.
23. Plaintiff City’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 24. Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 25. Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. VI. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial: 1. Duty of Care. Generally, everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care when their conduct creates a risk of physical harm to others. Nev. J.I. 4.3. Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Id. Ordinary care is care which persons of ordinary prudence would exercise in the management of their own affairs to avoid injury to themselves or to others. Id. The issues as to duty are: a. Whether the parties owed a duty of care. 2. Proximate Cause. A proximate cause of injury, damage, loss, or harm is a cause
which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury, damage, loss, or harm, and without which the injury, damage, loss, or harm, would not have occurred. Nev. J.I. 4.4. The issues as to causation are: a. Whether a breach in the duty of care proximately caused the accident. 3. Comparative Negligence. A plaintiff may not recover damages if their comparative negligence has contributed more to their injury than the negligence of the defendant. Nev. J.I. 4.8. However, if the plaintiff is negligent, the plaintiff may still recover a reduced sum, so long as their comparative negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant. Id. The issues as to comparative negligence are: a. Whether Plaintiff(s) were negligent (and if so, by what percentage).
b. Whether Plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing their own harm. c. Does Plaintiff’s percentage of negligence exceed the negligence of Losee, if any, barring recovery pursuant to NRS 41.141.(1). d. The percentage of negligence attributable to the Plaintiff shall reduce the amount of such recovery by the proportionate amount of such negligence and the reduction will be made by the Court. 4. Damages. In determining losses, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate (legal) cause of the accident, the Court must take into consideration the nature, extent and duration from the evidence and decide upon a sum to reasonably and fairly compensate: (a) reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred in the past; (b) reasonable and necessary medical expenses to incur in the future as a result of the accident; (c) lost earnings that were incurred and future earnings that are reasonably certain to have been lost in the future; (d) pain
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States Attorney District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 R. Thomas Colonna Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6552 Richard.Colonna@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Tameia City, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-02193-JCM-EJY vs. AMENDED JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER The United States of America, Defendant. Emely Johana Portillo, an individual; and Eva Lilian Leonzo De Portillo an individual Plaintiffs, vs. The United States of America, Defendant Comes now Plaintiff Tameia City (“City”), by and through her attorneys Jordan Schnitzer, Esq., and Plaintiffs Emely Johanna Portillo (“Emely Portillo”) and Eva Lilian Leonzo de Portillo (“Eva Portillo”); and Defendant United States of America, by the United States Attorney, submit this proposed Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to the Court’s Order on August 19, 2024, and Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. I. Summary of Action This is a tort action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), wherein Plaintiffs Tameia City and Plaintiffs Emely Johana Portillo and Eva Lilian Leonzo de
Portillo allege they sustained personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on May 7, 2019. II. Statement of Jurisdiction The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction arises under the FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1346 et. seq. Because this is an FTCA case, the Court will be acting as the trier-of-fact. There will be no jury trial in this case. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 1. Plaintiff Tameia City, Defendant’s employee Kyle Loose, and Plaintiffs Emely
Portillo and Eva Portillo, were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about May 7, 2019. 2. At the time of the accident, Mr. Loose was acting in the course and scope of his duties as an employee of the United States. IV. The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: None. V. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial. 1. The duty of care owed and to whom. 2. The actions or inactions taken to constitute a breach of duty of care. 3. The mechanism of the cause of the accident. 4. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City, suffered injury and/or sustained
damages from the accident. 5. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo, suffered injury and/or sustained damages from the accident. 6. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo suffered injury and/or sustained damages from the accident. 7. The extent and quality of Plaintiff City’s pre-existing medical conditions. 8. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s pre-existing medical conditions. 9. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s pre-existing medical conditions. 10. Whether Plaintiff City’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical
conditions that pre-existed the accident. 11. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 12. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 13. Whether Plaintiff City contributed to her own alleged damages. 14. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 15. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 16. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City incurred damages as a proximate cause of the negligence of others. 17. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo incurred damages as a proximate cause of the negligence of others. 18. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo incurred damages as a
proximate cause of the negligence of others. 19. The type and extent of damages claimed for (1) past medical expenses; (2) future medical expenses; (3) pain and suffering; (4) lost wages; (5) property damages; (6) other general and special damages. 20. Whether Plaintiff City’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 21. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 22. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident.
23. Plaintiff City’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 24. Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 25. Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. VI. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial: 1. Duty of Care. Generally, everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care when their conduct creates a risk of physical harm to others. Nev. J.I. 4.3. Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Id. Ordinary care is care which persons of ordinary prudence would exercise in the management of their own affairs to avoid injury to themselves or to others. Id. The issues as to duty are: a. Whether the parties owed a duty of care. 2. Proximate Cause. A proximate cause of injury, damage, loss, or harm is a cause
which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury, damage, loss, or harm, and without which the injury, damage, loss, or harm, would not have occurred. Nev. J.I. 4.4. The issues as to causation are: a. Whether a breach in the duty of care proximately caused the accident. 3. Comparative Negligence. A plaintiff may not recover damages if their comparative negligence has contributed more to their injury than the negligence of the defendant. Nev. J.I. 4.8. However, if the plaintiff is negligent, the plaintiff may still recover a reduced sum, so long as their comparative negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant. Id. The issues as to comparative negligence are: a. Whether Plaintiff(s) were negligent (and if so, by what percentage).
b. Whether Plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing their own harm. c. Does Plaintiff’s percentage of negligence exceed the negligence of Losee, if any, barring recovery pursuant to NRS 41.141.(1). d. The percentage of negligence attributable to the Plaintiff shall reduce the amount of such recovery by the proportionate amount of such negligence and the reduction will be made by the Court. 4. Damages. In determining losses, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate (legal) cause of the accident, the Court must take into consideration the nature, extent and duration from the evidence and decide upon a sum to reasonably and fairly compensate: (a) reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred in the past; (b) reasonable and necessary medical expenses to incur in the future as a result of the accident; (c) lost earnings that were incurred and future earnings that are reasonably certain to have been lost in the future; (d) pain
and suffering; (e) loss of household services. See Nev. J.I. 5.1. Additional issues for the Court’s determination are: a. Whether Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by pre-existing medical conditions that existed prior to the accident. [A person who has a condition or disability at the time of the injury is not entitled to recover damages therefor. See Nev. J.I. 5.3.] b. Whether Plaintiff mitigated her alleged damages. (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by the clerk: Stipulated Exhibits Agreed To By Parties United States of America and Tameia City1 1. Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Medicine Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- ADVANCED ORTHO 000001 - 000007 2. Advantage Diagnostic Imaging Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- ADVANTAGE 000001 - 000003 3. Enrico Fazzini, D.O., PH.D, F.A.C.N Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- FAZZINI 000001-000014 & FAZINI LETTER 000001 4. Fremont Emergency Services Billing Records; 1 The Portillo Plaintiffs do not object to exhibits 1-11 as these exhibits are applicable to Plaintiff City. The Portillo Plaintiffs do object to Exhibit 12 being admitted into evidence as that document is hearsay without exception. See Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 221, 698 P.2d 875, 876 (1985). The Portillo Plaintiffs stipulate and do not object to the admission of exhibits 13 and 14 in their case. Bate Stamped- FREMONT 000001 5. Interventional Pain & Spine Institute Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- INTERVENTIONAL 000001 - 000005 6. Michael Elliott and Associates Hospital Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- ELLIOTT 000001-000013 7. Mountain View Hospital Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- MOUNTAIN VIEW 000001 - 000018 8. Radiology Specialists, LTD Billing Records; Bate Stamped- RAD SPECIALISTS 000001 9. SimonMed Imaging Hospital Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- SMI 000001-000019 10. The Neck & Back Clinics Medical and Billing Records; Bate Stamped- NECKBACK 000001 - 000203 11. Plaintiff’s Pay Stubs for Loss Wage Claim; Bate Stamped – LOSS WAGE 000001 - 000006 12. LVMPD Traffic Accident Report dated 05/07/2019; Bate Stamped – LVMPD REPORT 000001 – 000008 – To be redacted 13. Dash Cam Video of Incident; Bate Stamped – VIDEO 000001 14. Photos; Bate Stamped- PHOTOS 000001 – 000017 Stipulated Exhibits Agreed To By Parties United States of America and Eva Portillo 1. Video of Incident – VIDEO 000001 2. Property Damage Photographs Bates No. PLTF 00020 – PLTF 00033 3. Property Damage Estimate Bates No. PLTF 00009 – PLTF 00019 4. American Medical Response Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00002 – ELP 00009 5. American Medical Response Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00001 6. Mountain View Hospital Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00013 – ELP 00046 7. Mountain View Hospital Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00010 – ELP 00012 8. Fremont Emergency Associates Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00413 9. Nevada Chiropractic Rehab Center Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00052 - ELP 00115 10. Nevada Chiropractic Rehab Center Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00047 – ELP 00051 11. Shield Radiology Consultant Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00414 12. Shield Radiology Consultant Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00415 13. Radiology Specialists Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00118 14. Radiology Specialists Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00116 – ELP 00117 15. Interventional Pain and Spine Institute Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00120 – ELP 00122 16. Interventional Pain and Spine Institute Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00119 17. Pueblo Medical Imaging Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00124 – ELP 00129 18. Pueblo Medical Imaging Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00123 19. Desert Orthopedic Center Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00132 – ELP 00136 20. Desert Orthopedic Center Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00130 – ELP 00131 21. Las Vegas Neurosurgical Institute Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00423 – 00428 22. Las Vegas Radiology Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00429 -- 00443 23. Las Vegas Radiology Imaging Records 24. Las Vegas Radiology Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00444 - 00445 25. DiMuro Pain Management Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00416 – 420; ELP 422; ELP 00446 – 00452; ELP 00455; ELP 00456 –00582; ELP 00593 – 00624; ELP 00628 -- 00660 26. DiMuro Pain Management Billing Records Bates No. ELP 00421; ELP 00453 – 00454; ELP 00583 – 00587; ELP 00625 – 00627; ELP 00661 - 00662 27. W.Azzoli, M.D. Medical Records Bates No. ELP 00588 - 00591 28. W.Azzoli, M.D. Billing Records Stipulated Exhibits Agreed To By Parties United States of America and Emely Portillo 1. Video of Incident – VIDEO 000001 2. Property Damage Photographs Bates No. PLTF 00020 – PLTF 00033 3. American Medical Response Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00002 – EJP 00016 4. American Medical Response Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00001 5. Mountain View Hospital Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00020 – EJP 00066 6. Mountain View Hospital Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00017 – EJP 00019 7. Nevada Chiropractic Rehabilitation Center Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00067 – EJP 00099 8. Nevada Chiropractic Rehabilitation Center Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00070 – EJP 00074 9. Radiology Consultants Report Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00100 – EJP 00153 10. Radiology Consultants Report Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00059 11. Pain and Spine Institute Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00158 – EJP 00165 12. Pain and Spine Institute Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00154 – EJP 00157 13. Pueblo Medical Imaging Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00169 – EJP 00175 14. Pueblo Medial Imaging Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00166 – EJP 00168 15. Dr. Enrico Fazzani Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00177 – EJP 00180 16. Dr. Enrico Fazzani Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00176 17. Desert Orthopedic Center Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00183 – EJP 00188; EJP 00571 - 00591 18. Desert Orthopedic Center Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00181 – EJP 00182, EJP 00592 19. Fremont Emergency Associates Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00434 20. Shield Radiology Consultant Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00435 21. Shield Radiology Consultant Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00436 22. DiMuro Pain Management Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00437 – 442, EJP 00683 – 00722, EJP 00728 – 00885, EJP 00896 – 00932, EJP 00936 - 00970 23. DiMuro Pain Management Cost Estimate Letters Bates No. EJP 00444, EJP 00445, EJP 00725 - 00726 24. DiMuro Pain Management Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00443, EJP 00723 – 00724, EJP 00886 – 00889, EJP 00933 – 00935, EJP 00971 - 00973 25. Desert Orthopedic Center Imaging Records Bates No. EJP 00444 - 00570 26. Las Vegas Neurosurgical Institute – Dr. McNulty Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00593 - 00599 27. Pueblo Medical Imaging Records Bates No. EJP 00600 - 00662 28. Las Vegas Radiology Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00663 - 00681 29. Las Vegas Radiology Billing Records Bates No. EJP 00682 30. Las Vegas Radiology Imaging Records 31. Las Vegas Pharmacy Billing Record Bates No. EJP 00727, EJP 00895 32. W.Azzoli, M.D., Medical Records Bates No. EJP 00890 – 00893, EJP 00894 (b) As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objects to their admission on the grounds stated: Plaintiff’s Exhibits & Defendant’s Objections Plaintiff, Tameia City (PROPOSED): # Description Objection 15. Property Damage Value from Kelly Blue Book; Expert opinion; best evidence Bate Stamped – KBB 000001 - 000003 rule; speculation 16. Dr. Douglas Ross Initial Expert Report; Hearsay; relevance; best Bate Stamped- DR. ROSS EXPERT 000001 - evidence rule; prejudicial 000007 17. Dr. Douglas Ross CV, Fee Schedule, Testimony Hearsay; relevance; best List; evidence rule; prejudicial Bate Stamped- DOUGLAS ROSS 000001 - 000004 18. Dr. Enrico Fazzini CV, Fee Schedule, Testimony Hearsay; relevance; best List; evidence rule; prejudicial Bate Stamped- ENRICO FAZZINI 000001 - 000019 19. Complaint; Hearsay; relevance; best Bate Stamped- COMPLAINT 000001 – 000007 evidence rule; prejudicial 20. Amended Complaint; Hearsay; relevance; best Bate Stamped- AMEND COMPLAINT 000001 – evidence rule; prejudicial 000011 21. Certificate of Interested Parties; Relevance Bate Stamped- COIP 000001 - 000002 22. Geoffrey T. Manley, MD, PhD; and the TRACK- Calls for speculation; expert T PB osI t tI rn av ue mst aig tia ct ors S, tJ rA esM s A DPs isy oc rh dia et rr y. 2 a0 n1 d9 . R Mis ak j oo rf opinion; hearsay; relevance; best evidence rule; prejudicial Depression in Civilian Patients After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury A TRACK-TBI Study Bate Stamped: RISK OF PTSD MILD TBI 000001- 000010 23. Donald Berwick, Katherine Bowman, and Chanel Calls for speculation; expert Matney, Editors; Committee on Accelerating opinion; hearsay; relevance; Progress in Traumatic Brain Injury Research and best evidence rule; prejudicial Care; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Health Care Services; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Traumatic Brain Injury: A Roadmap for Accelerating Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25394. Bates Stamped: TBI ACCELERATING PROGRESS 000001-000245 24. Uttam K. Bodanapally, MBBS, Chandler Sours, Calls for speculation; expert PhD, Jiachen Zhuo, PhD,Kathirkamanathan opinion; hearsay; relevance; Shanmuganathan, MD Imaging of Traumatic Brain best evidence rule; prejudicial Injury (2015) Bates Stamped: IMAGING OF TBI 000001-000021 25. Hana Lee, Max Wintermark, Alisa D. Gean, Jamshid Calls for speculation; expert Ghajar, Geoffrey T. Manley, and Pratik Mukherjee opinion; hearsay; relevance; Focal Lesions in Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury best evidence rule; prejudicial and Neurocognitive Outcome: CT versus 3T MRI (Sept 2008) Bates Stamped: FOCAL LESIONS MILD TBI 000001-000008 26. Esther L. Yuh, MD, PhD, Pratik Mukherjee, MD, Calls for speculation; expert PhD, Hester F. Lingsma, PhD, John K. Yue, BS, opinion; hearsay; relevance; Adam R. Ferguson, PhD, Wayne A. Gordon, PhD, best evidence rule; prejudicial Alex B. Valadka, MD, David M. Schnyer, PhD, David O. Okonkwo, MD, PhD, Andrew I. R. Maas, MD, PhD, Geoffrey T. Manley, MD, PhD Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improves3-Month Outcome Prediction in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (Sept 2012) Bates Stamped: MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING 000001-000012 27. Debbie Y. Madhok, MD, Robert M. Rodriguez, MD, Calls for speculation; expert Jason Barberm, MS, Nancy R. Temkin, PhD, Amy opinion; hearsay; relevance; J. Markowitz, JD, Natalie Kreitzer, MD, and best evidence rule; prejudicial Geoffrey T. Manley, MD, PhD, Outcomes in Patients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Without Acute Intracranial Traumatic Injury (Aug 2022) Bates Stamped: MILD TBI WO ACUTE INTRACRANIAL TJ 000001-000020 28. Laura A. Swingen, DC, DACNB; Rosi Goldsmith, Calls for speculation; expert LMT; Judith Boothby, MS, DC; Terry McDermott, opinion; hearsay; relevance; DC; Catherine Kleibel, BA Video Nystagmography best evidence rule; prejudicial to Monitor Treatment in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Case Report (April 2017) Bates Stamped: NYSTAGMOGRAPHY MON TBI 000001-000007 29. Brasure M, Lamberty GJ, Sayer NA, et al. Calls for speculation; expert Multidisciplinary Postacute Rehabilitation for opinion; hearsay; relevance; Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in best evidence rule; prejudicial Adults [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 72.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98993/ Bates Stamped: MULTI POST MOD TBI 000001- 000003 30. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Calls for speculation; expert Concussion Fact Sheet For Parents; opinion; hearsay; relevance; Bates Stamped: CDC HEADS UP CONCUSSION best evidence rule; prejudicial 000001-000002 31. Linsday D. Nelson, PhD, Nancy R. Temkin, PhD, Calls for speculation; expert Sureyya Dikmen, PhD, Jason Barber, MS, Joesph T. opinion; hearsay; relevance; Giacino, PhD, Ester Yuh, MD, PhD, Harvey S. best evidence rule; prejudicial Levin, PhD, Michael A. McCrea, PhD, Murray B. Stein, MD, MPH, Pratik Mukherjee, MD, PhD, David O. Okonkwo, MD, PhD, Ramon Diaz- Arratia, MD, PhD, Geoffrey T. Manley, MD, PhD, Recovery After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Patients Presenting to US Level 1 Trauma Centers (2019) Bates Stamped: RECOVERY AFTER MILE TBI 000001-000026 32. Staci R. Ross, PhD, ABPP Medical Records; Calls for speculation; expert Haarbauer-Krupa, J, Pugh, MJ, Prager, EM, opinion; hearsay; relevance; Harmon, N, Wolfe, J, & Yaffee, K, Epidemiology of best evidence rule; prejudicial Chronic Effects of Traumatic Brain Journal of Neurotrauma (2021); Bates Stamped- CHRONIC EFFECTS TBI 000001- 000014 33. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, How you Calls for speculation; expert may Feel After a Concussion & Tips for your opinion; hearsay; relevance; Recovery; best evidence rule; prejudicial Bates Stamped- CDC AFTER CONCUSSION 000001-000002 34. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Calls for speculation; expert Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury is a opinion; hearsay; relevance; Lifelong Condition; best evidence rule; prejudicial Bates Stamped- CDC MOD TO SEVERE TBI 000001-000002 35. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Mild Calls for speculation; expert Traumatic Brain Injury and Concussions; opinion; hearsay; relevance; Bates Stamped- CDC MILD TBI CONCUSSION best evidence rule; prejudicial 000001-000004 36. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Calls for speculation; expert Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: opinion; hearsay; relevance; Epidemiology and Rehabilitation; best evidence rule; prejudicial Bates Stamped- CDC TBI IN US 000001-000072 37. Deborah E. Barnes, PhD, MPH; Amy L. Byers, Calls for speculation; expert PhD, MPH; Raquel C. Gardner, MD; Karen H. Seal, opinion; hearsay; relevance; MD, MPH; W. John Boscardin, PhD; Kristine Yaffe, best evidence rule; prejudicial MD, Association of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with and Without Loss of Consciousness with Dementia in US Military Veterans (2018); Bates Stamped- ASSOC OF TBI DEMENTIA 000001-000007 38. Masel, Brent E. and DeWitt, Douglas S.; Traumatic Calls for speculation; expert Brain Injury: A Disease Process, Not and Event opinion; hearsay; relevance; (2010); best evidence rule; prejudicial Bates Stamped- TBI DISEASE 000001-000012 39. Leigh, Suzanne, Dementia Risk Doubles Following Calls for speculation; expert Concussion, UCSF Study Shows (2018); opinion; hearsay; relevance; Bates Stamped- UCSF DEMENTIA RISK 000001- best evidence rule; prejudicial 000006 40. Brain Injury Association of America, Calls for speculation; expert Conceptualizing Brain Injury as Chronic Disease opinion; hearsay; relevance; (2009); best evidence rule; prejudicial Bates Stamped- BRAIN INJURY CHRONIC DISEASE 000001-000011 41. Michael Fralick MD BScH, Deva Thiruchelvam Calls for speculation; expert MSc, Homer C. Tien MD MSc, and opinion; hearsay; relevance; Donald A. Redelmeier MD MS(HSR), Risk of best evidence rule; prejudicial suicide after a concussion (2016); Bates Stamped- RISK SUICIDE AFTER CONCUSION 000001-000008 42. Amir Sariaslan, David J. Sharp, Calls for speculation; expert Brian M. D’Onofrio, Henrik Larsson, and opinion; hearsay; relevance; Seena Fazel, Long-Term Outcomes Associated with best evidence rule; prejudicial Traumatic Brain Injury in Childhood and Adolescence: A Nationwide Swedish Cohort Study of a Wide Range of Medical and Social Outcomes (2016) Bates Stamped- LONG TERM TBI CHILDHOOD ADOLESCENCE 000001-000013 43. Kerry McInnes, Christopher L. Friesen, Diane E. Calls for speculation; expert MacKenzie, David A. Westwood, and Shaun G. opinion; hearsay; relevance; Boe, Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) and best evidence rule; prejudicial Chronic Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review (2017) Bates Stamps- MTBI CHRONIC COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT 000001-000019 44. University of Cambridge, edited by Jeff Victoroff Calls for speculation; expert and Erin D. Bigler, Concussion and Traumatic opinion; hearsay; relevance; Encephalopathy Causes, Diagnosis, and best evidence rule; prejudicial Management (2019) 45. Dalby BJ. Chiropractic diagnosis and treatment of Calls for speculation; expert closed head trauma. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. opinion; hearsay; relevance; 1993 Jul-Aug;16(6):392-400. PMID: 8409787 best evidence rule; prejudicial 46. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Injury Calls for speculation; expert Center, Mild TBI and Concussions. opinion; hearsay; relevance; best evidence rule; prejudicial 47. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Injury Calls for speculation; expert Center, Preventing Traumatic Brain Injury opinion; hearsay; relevance; best evidence rule; prejudicial 48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, What is Calls for speculation; expert a Concussion? (2019) opinion; hearsay; relevance; best evidence rule; prejudicial 49. Croft, Arthur C., Whiplash and Mild Traumatic Calls for speculation; expert Brain Injuries A Guide to Patients and Practitioners opinion; hearsay; relevance; (2009). best evidence rule; prejudicial 50. Bidirectional Changes in Anisotropy Are Calls for speculation; expert Associated with Outcomes in Mild Traumatic Brain opinion; hearsay; relevance; Injury, X S.B. Strauss, XN. Kim, X C.A. Branch, X best evidence rule; prejudicial M.E. Kahn, X M. Kim, X R.B. Lipton, X J.M. Provataris, X H.F. Scholl,X M.E. Zimmerman, and X M.L. Lipton, AM J of Neuroradiology, (June 9, 2016). 51. Roberts, Rachel M., et al, Relationship Between Calls for speculation; expert Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Findings and opinion; hearsay; relevance; Cognition Following Pediatric TZBI: A Meta- best evidence rule; prejudicial Analytic Review, Developmental Neuropsychology, DOI: 10.1080/87565641.2016.1186167., (May 27, 2016). 52. Strauss, et als, Current Clinicla Applications and Calls for speculation; expert Future Potential of Diffusion Tensor Imaging in opinion; hearsay; relevance; Traumatic Brain Injury, Topics in Magnetic best evidence rule; prejudicial Resonance Imaging, Vol. 24, Number 6, (December, 2015). 53. Fakhran, Saeed, et al, Symptomatic White Matter Calls for speculation; expert Changes in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Resemble opinion; hearsay; relevance; Pathologic Features of Early Alzheimer Dementia, best evidence rule; prejudicial Radiology volume 269: Number 1 – (October, 2013). 54. Treble, Amery, et al, Working Memory and Corpus Calls for speculation; expert Callosum Microstructural Integrity after Pediatric opinion; hearsay; relevance; Traumatic Brain Injury: A Diffusion Tensor best evidence rule; prejudicial Tractography Study, Journal of Neurotrauma 30:1609 – 1619 (October 1, 2013). 55. Yeh, Ping-Hong, et al, Postconcussional Disorder Calls for speculation; expert and PTSD Symptoms of Militray-Related opinion; hearsay; relevance; Traumatic Brain Injury Associated With best evidence rule; prejudicial Compromised Neurocircuitry, Human Brain Mapping (September 13, 2013). 56. Zwany Metting, et al, Pathophysiological Concepts Calls for speculation; expert in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Diffusion Tensor opinion; hearsay; relevance; Imaging Related to Acute Perfusion CT Imaging, best evidence rule; prejudicial PLOSONE (May 2013), Volume 8, Issue 5. 57. Hulklower, et at., A Decade of DTI in Traumatic Calls for speculation; expert Brain Injury: 10 Years and 100 Articles Later, AJNR opinion; hearsay; relevance; - Published (January 10, 2013) as best evidence rule; prejudicial 10.3174/ajnr.A3395. 58. Editorial, Jonathan Silver, M.D., Diffusion tensor Calls for speculation; expert imaging and mild traumatic brain injury in opinion; hearsay; relevance; soldiers: abnormal findings,uncertain implications, best evidence rule; prejudicial Am J Psychiatry 169:12, (December 2012). 59. Aoki, et al, (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2012 Calls for speculation; expert Sep); 83(9):870-6. opinion; hearsay; relevance; best evidence rule; prejudicial 60. Dr. Toth, et al, (J Neurotrauma, 2012 Aug 20 E- Calls for speculation; expert published). Available publicly for purchase. opinion; hearsay; relevance; Shumskaya, Elena, et al, Abnormal Whole-Brain best evidence rule; prejudicial Functional Networks in Homogeneous Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Neurology, 79, (July 10, 2012), pp. 175 – 182. 61. Wada, T., et al, Decreased Fractional Anisotropy Calls for speculation; expert Evaluated Using Tract- Based Spatial Statistics opinion; hearsay; relevance; and Correlated with Cognitive Dysfunction in best evidence rule; prejudicial Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Chronic Stage, Am J Neuroradiology, published (June 21, 2012) as 10.3174/ajnr.A3141 62. Wada, et al, Decreased Fractional Anisotropy Calls for speculation; expert Evaluated Using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics and opinion; hearsay; relevance; Correlated with Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients best evidence rule; prejudicial with Mild Truamatic Brain Inury in the Chronic Stage, AJNR, (June 21, 2012). 63. Dr. Lipton and coauthors at Einstein College of Calls for speculation; expert Medicine (Brain Imaging Behav. (2012 Jun); opinion; hearsay; relevance; 6(2):329-42). best evidence rule; prejudicial 64. Lipton, et al., Robust detection of traumatic axonal Calls for speculation; expert injury in individual mild traumatic brain injury opinion; hearsay; relevance; patients: Intersubject variation, change over time best evidence rule; prejudicial and bidirectional changes in anisotropy, Brain Imaging and Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s11682-012- 9175-2. (June, 2012). 65. Huang, Ming-Xiong, et al, An Automatic MEG Calls for speculation; expert Low-Frequency Source Imaging Approach for opinion; hearsay; relevance; Detecting Injuries in Mild and Moderate TBI best evidence rule; prejudicial Patients With Blast and Non-Blast Causes, NeuroImage, 61 (April 20, 2012) 1067 – 1082. 66. Matthews, S.C., et. al., Diffusion tensor imaging Calls for speculation; expert evidence of white matter disruption associated with opinion; hearsay; relevance; loss versus alteration of consciousness, Psychiatry best evidence rule; prejudicial Research: Neuroimaging (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychresns.2012.04.018. 67. M.E. Shenton et al, A Review Of Magnetic Calls for speculation; expert Resonance Imaging and Diffusion Tensor Imaging opinion; hearsay; relevance; Findings in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Brain best evidence rule; prejudicial Imaging and Behavior J. (March 2012). 68. Drs. Sharp and Ham from the Hammersmith in Calls for speculation; expert London (Curr Opin Neurol. (2011 Dec);24(6):558- opinion; hearsay; relevance; 63). best evidence rule; prejudicial 69. Wang, J.Y., et al, Longitudinal Changes of Calls for speculation; expert Structural Connectivity in Traumatic Axonal opinion; hearsay; relevance; Injury, Neurology 77, (August 30, 2011). best evidence rule; prejudicial 70. Vos, Pieter; Bigler, Erin, White Matter in Traumatic Calls for speculation; expert Brain Injury, Dis- or Dysconnection?, Neurology opinion; hearsay; relevance; 77, (August 30, 2011). best evidence rule; prejudicial 71. Wu, Trevor – Evaluating the Relationship between Calls for speculation; expert Memory Functioning and Cingulum Bundles in opinion; hearsay; relevance; Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury using Diffusion best evidence rule; prejudicial Tensor Imaging – Journal of Neurotrauma 27:303- 307 (February 2010). 72. Bigler, E.D. – Voxel-Based Analysis of Diffusion Calls for speculation; expert Tensor Imaging in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in opinion; hearsay; relevance; Adolescents – AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31, (Feb best evidence rule; prejudicial 2010). Available publicly for purchase. Kumar, Raj – Serial Changes in Diffusion Tensor Imaging Metrics of Corpus Callosum in Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury patients and Their Correlation with Neuropsychometric Tests: A 2- Year Follow Up Study – J Head Trauma Rehabil Vol. 25, No 1, pp. 31-42 (February, 2010). 73. Bigler, Eric, Ph.D. – Diffusion tensor imaging: A Calls for speculation; expert Biomarker for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury? – opinion; hearsay; relevance; Neurology (February 23, 2010);74:626-627. best evidence rule; prejudicial 74. Mayer, A.R, Ph.D. – A prospective diffusion tensor Calls for speculation; expert imaging study in mild traumatic brain injury – opinion; hearsay; relevance; Neurology (January 20, 2010);74: 643-650. best evidence rule; prejudicial 75. Lipton, Michael, M.D., Ph.D. – Diffusion-Tensor Calls for speculation; expert Imaging Implicates Prefrontal Axonal Injury in opinion; hearsay; relevance; Executive Function Impairment Following Very best evidence rule; prejudicial Mild Traumatic Brain Injury – Radiology: Volume 252:Number 3-(September 2009). 76. Lo, Calvin – Diffusion Tensor Imaging Calls for speculation; expert Abnormalities in Patients with Mild Traumatic opinion; hearsay; relevance; Brain Injury and Neurocognitive Impairment – best evidence rule; prejudicial Comput Assist Tomogr, Volume 33, Number 2, (March/April 2009). 77. Lipton, Michael – Multifocal White Matter Calls for speculation; expert Ultrastructural Abnormalities in mild Traumatic opinion; hearsay; relevance; Brain Injury with Cognitive Disability: A Voxel- best evidence rule; prejudicial Wise Analysis of Diffusion Tensor Imaging – Journal of Neurotrauma 25:1335-1342 (November, 2008). 78. D.R. Rutgers, et al, Diffusion Tensor Imaging Calls for speculation; expert Characteristics of the Corpus Callosum in Mild, opinion; hearsay; relevance; Moderate, and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, best evidence rule; prejudicial American Journal of Neuroradiology (October 2008), 29: 1730-1735. 79. Chappell, Michael – Multivariate analysis of Calls for speculation; expert diffusion tensor imaging data improves the opinion; hearsay; relevance; detection of microstructural damage in young best evidence rule; prejudicial professional boxers – Magnetic Resonance Imaging (May 27, 2008). 80. Wilde, E. A. – Diffusion tensor imaging of acute Calls for speculation; expert mild traumatic brain injury in adolescents – opinion; hearsay; relevance; Neurology 70 (March 18, 2008). best evidence rule; prejudicial 81. Rutgers, D.R. – White Matter Abnormalities in Mild Calls for speculation; expert Traumatic Brain Injury: A Diffusion Tensor opinion; hearsay; relevance; Imaging Study – AJNR Am J Neuroradiol (March, best evidence rule; prejudicial 2008). Available publicly for purchase. Yuan, W – Diffusion Tensor MR Imaging Reveals Persistent White Matter Alteration after Traumatic Brain Injury Experienced during Early Childhood –AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1919-25 (Nov-Dec 2007). 82. Kraus, Marilyn F. – White matter integrity and Calls for speculation; expert cognition in chronic traumatic brain injury: a opinion; hearsay; relevance; diffusion tensor imaging study – Brain (September best evidence rule; prejudicial 14, 2007) pp. 1-12. 83. Benson, Randall – Global White Matter Analysis of Calls for speculation; expert Diffusion Tensor Images is Predictive of Injury opinion; hearsay; relevance; Severity in Traumatic Brain Injury – Journal of best evidence rule; prejudicial Neurotrauma Volume 24, Number3, (March, 2007). Defendant Exhibits & Plaintiff’s Objections 1. SF-95 (Tameia City) Hearsay; settlement negotiations; foundation 2. SF-95 (Eva Portillo) Hearsay; settlement negotiations; foundation 3. SF-95 (Emely Portillo) Hearsay; settlement negotiations; foundation (c) Electronic evidence: At this time, neither party anticipates presenting any electronic evidence. Should that change, the Court will be notified immediately. (d) Depositions: (1) Plaintiff will offer the following depositions: Plaintiff Tameia City does not intend to offer page and line designations at this time for any deposition transcripts. In the event Plaintiff learns that a witness is unavailable to testify at trial, Plaintiff will notify all parties and the Court of page and line designations of the unavailable witness’ deposition transcript to offer at trial. Plaintiff reserves the right to use deposition transcripts to refresh recollection, to impeach, and otherwise to use at trial in accordance with applicable rules, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, and Fed. R. Evid. 801(d). (2) Should the need arise, the Portillo Plaintiffs will offer the following portions of the deposition of Kyle Wesley Losee, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, in which he admits, inter alia, to being distracted by his phone, that he failed to pay full attention to the roadway, ran a red light and collided with the Plaintiff City vehicle and then collided with the Plaintiff Portillo vehicle: 13:17-14:6; 17:20- 18:9; 18:15-19; 20:9-12; 20:22-21:15; 23:4-10; 23:14-18; 24:25-25:9; and 25:15- 17. (3) Defendant will offer the following depositions: Defendant does not intend to offer page and line designations at this time for any deposition transcripts. In the event Defendant learns that a witness is unavailable to testify at trial, Defendant will notify all parties and the Court of page and line designations of the unavailable witness’ deposition transcript to offer at trial. Defendant reserves the right to use deposition transcripts to refresh recollection, to impeach, and otherwise to use at trial in accordance with applicable rules, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, and Fed. R. Evid. 801(d). (e) Objections To Depositions: (1) Plaintiff’s Objections: None. (2) Defendant’s Objections: None. VIII. The following witnesses may be called by the parties at trial: (a) Plaintiff’s witnesses (1)Plaintiff’s Tameia City Witnesses (PROPOSED): Witnesses Plaintiff expects to call: 1. Tameia L. City c/o THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM 710 South 9th Street, Suite 2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 c/o NV INJURY LAW, LLC 3511 S. Eastern Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 2. Eva L. Leonzo De Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 3. Emely Johana Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 4. Kyle W. Losee, U.S. Marine Corps c/o U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 5. David Garcia 1528 Wheatland Way Las Vegas, NV 89128 6. Keya Jamerson 3909 Goldfield Street North Las Vegas, NV 89032 (702)333-5790 7. Lameesha Johnson 10331 Cameron Street Las Vegas, NV 89141 (702)449-8603 8. Lakeiwa Johnson 8033 Misty Canyon Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702)557-0338 9. Felicia Daniel 8628 Magnolia Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89134 (702)759-6891 10.Naomi Johnson 6750 Thalia River Las Vegas, NV 89148 (702)624-9375 11.Ulysses Davis 8628 Magnolia Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89134 (725)264-9412 12.Travis Snyder, D.O. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records SimonMed 7455 W. Washington Ave Ste 120 Las Vegas, NV 89128 13.David Wach D.C. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records The Neck & Back Clinics P.O. Box 36853 Las Vegas, NV 89133 14.Michael A. Elliott, Ph.D. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Michael Elliott and Associates 10170 S Eastern Ave., #110 Henderson, NV 89052 15.Douglas Ross, MD, FACEP Ross Medical Group 2481 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy #100 Henderson, NV 89052 16.Enrico Fazzini, D.O., PH.D, F.A.C.N Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Enrico Fazzini, D.O., PH.D, F.A.C.N 291 North Pecos Rd Henderson, NV 89074 17.Thomas O'Brien, PA Xin Nick Liu, D.O. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Medicine P.O. Box 50605 Henderson, NV 89016 Witnesses Plaintiff may call if the need arises: 18.Pamela O. Knight c/o OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 9620 Maryland Ave., #205, Norfolk, VA 23511 19.Thomas E. Campbell c/o OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 9620 Maryland Ave., #205 Norfolk, VA 23511 20.Department of the Navy Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records c/o OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 9620 Maryland Ave., #205 Norfolk, VA 23511 21.U.S. Marine Corps c/o OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 9620 Maryland Ave., #205 Norfolk, VA 23511 22.James Wellcome (7084) Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 400 S. Martin L. King Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89106 23.Keith M. Lewis, M.D Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Advantage Diagnostic Imaging 3430 N. Buffalo Dr., Ste 110 Las Vegas, NV 89129 24.Robert Spence, M.D. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Fremont Emergency Services P.O. Box 638972 Cincinnati, OH 45263 25.Marcelo Gomez, PA-C Stuart Baird, M.D. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Interventional Pain & Spine Institute 851 S. Rampart Blvd., #100 Las Vegas, NV 89145 26.Robert Spence, M.D. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Mountain View Hospital 3100 N. Tenaya Way Las Vegas, NV 89128 27.Nathaniel Hernandez, M.D. Persons Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian of Records Radiology Specialists, LTD P.O. Box 50709 Henderson, NV 89016-0709 Plaintiff City reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Defendant’s witness list and named during discovery. Plaintiff City reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial. Plaintiff City reserves the right to call any of Defendant’s experts as witnesses. Defendant USA reserves all rights and objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. (b)Plaintiff Eva Portillo
Witnesses plaintiff expects to call: 1. Eva L. Leonzo De Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 2. Emely Johana Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 3. Tameia L. City c/o THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM 710 South 9th Street, Suite 2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 c/o NV INJURY LAW, LLC 3511 S. Eastern Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 4. Kyle W. Losee, U.S. Marine Corps c/o U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 5. Patrick McNulty, M.D., ABOS, ABSS Las Vegas Neurosurgical Institute 3012 S. Durango Drive Las Vegas, NV 89117 702-463-1424 6. John M. DiMuro, DO, MBA Dimuro Professional Services 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 7. Enrico Fazzini M.D. 291 N Pecos Rd, Henderson, NV 89074 Ph: (516) 371-2225 8. William Azzoli, M.D. 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 9. Elizabeth L. Huck, D.O. Las Vegas Radiology 7500 Smoke Ranch Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89128 10.Keith M Lewis M.D. Pueblo Medical Imaging 5495 S. Rainbow Blvd Suite 203 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Ph: (702) 477-0772 Witnesses plaintiff will call should the need arise: 1. Michael Allswede, DO Mountain View Hospital 3100 N Tenaya Way Las Vegas, NV 89128 Ph: (702) 962-7800 2. Eric Biesbroeck, M.D. Mountain View Hospital 3100 N. Tenaya Way Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Ph: (702) 962-5000 3. Brandon Muhlestein AMR# 107137 American Medical Response 7201 W Post Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702)384-3400 4. Jodie Cannon AMR#58942 American Medical Response 7201 W Post Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702)384-3400 5. Arminas S. Wagner, MD Nevada Chiropractic Rehabilitation Center 3900 West Charleston Blvd Suite 140 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 6. Jorg Rosler, M.D Interventional Pain and Spine Institute 851 South Rampart Blvd Suite (702)357-8004 7. Tanner Croshaw, PA Dimuro Professional Services 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 Plaintiff Eva Portillo reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Defendant’s witness list and named during the course of discovery. Plaintiff Eva Portillo reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial. Plaintiff Eva Portillo reserves the right to call any of Defendant’s experts as witnesses. Defendant USA reserves all rights and objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. (c)Plaintiff Emely Portillo Witnesses plaintiff expects to call: 1. Emely Johana Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 2. Eva Lillian Leonzo De Portillo c/o STOVALL & ASSOCIATES 2301 Palomino Lane Las Vegas, NV 89107 3. Tameia L. City c/o THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM 710 South 9th Street, Suite 2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 c/o NV INJURY LAW, LLC 3511 S. Eastern Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 4. Kyle W. Losee, U.S. Marine Corps c/o U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 5. Patrick McNulty, M.D., ABOS, ABSS Las Vegas Neurosurgical Institute 3012 S. Durango Drive Las Vegas, NV 89117 702-463-1424 6. John M. DiMuro, DO, MBA Dimuro Professional Services 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 7. Enrico Fazzini M.D. 291 N Pecos Rd, Henderson, NV 89074 Ph: (516) 371-2225 8. William Azzoli, M.D. 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 9. Elizabeth L. Huck, D.O. Las Vegas Radiology 7500 Smoke Ranch Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89128 10.Keith M Lewis M.D. Pueblo Medical Imaging 5495 S. Rainbow Blvd Suite 203 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Ph: (702) 477-0772 Witnesses plaintiff will call should the need arise: 1. Michael Allswede, DO Mountain View Hospital 3100 N Tenaya Way Las Vegas, NV 89128 Ph: (702) 962-7800 2. Eric Biesbroeck, M.D. Mountain View Hospital 3100 N. Tenaya Way Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Ph: (702) 962-5000 3. Brandon Muhlestein AMR# 107137 American Medical Response 7201 W Post Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702)384-3400 4. Jodie Cannon AMR#58942 American Medical Response 7201 W Post Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702)384-3400 5. Arminas S. Wagner, MD Nevada Chiropractic Rehabilitation Center 3900 West Charleston Blvd Suite 140 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 6. Jorg Rosler, M.D Interventional Pain and Spine Institute 851 South Rampart Blvd Suite (702)357-8004 7. Tanner Croshaw, PA Dimuro Professional Services 3970 W. Ann Road, Suite 100 North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (702)747-4799 Plaintiff Emely Portillo reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Defendant’s witness list and named during discovery. Plaintiff Emely Portillo reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial. Plaintiff Emely Portillo reserves the right to call any of Defendant’s experts as witnesses. Defendant USA reserves all rights and objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. (d)Defendant’s witnesses: Kyle W. Losee c/o USAO-NV Emely Portillo c/o Stovall and Associates Eva Portillo c/o Stovall and Associates Tameia City c/o The Schnitzer Firm Benjamin Bjerke, M.D. (expert) c/o Benjamin Bjerke, MD Ltd. 1220 Spring Street Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Defendant, USA, reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s witness list and named during discovery. Defendant reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial. Defendant reserves the right to call any of Plaintiff’s experts as witnesses. Plaintiff reserves all rights of objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. IX.
The attorneys have conferred and jointly offer these three trial dates: February 3, 2025 March 17, 2025 May 5, 2025 It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the Court will set the trial of this matter on one of the agreed-upon dates, if possible, if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the Court’s calendar. X. It is estimated that the trial will take a total of 5 days. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
/s/ Jordan Schnitzer Counsel for Plaintiff City /s/ Ross Moyhihan Counsel for Plaintiffs Portillos /s/ R. Thomas Colonna Counsel for Defendant XI. This case is set for a bench trial on the fixed/stacked calendar on May 5, 2025, at 9:00 ! a.m. in Courtroom 6A.Calendar call will be held on April 30, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. Motions in limine to be filed by March 10, 2025. This pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their signature or the signatures of their counsel hereon, and the other is hereby entered and will govern the triz of this case. This order may not be amended except by court order and based upon the parties’ agreement or to prevent manifest injustice. il Mets ©. Atala UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 4, 2024
City v. United States of America (City v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.