01/08/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 01/08/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/10/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
01/08/2013
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
COMPREHENSIVE PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE SETTING
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Request for Rule 16(b) Status
Conference.
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a Comprehensive Pretrial Conference, pursuant
to Rule 16(b) on March 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (30 min.) before:
HON. ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
5th Floor, Courtroom 511
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-0341
The hearing will be heard telephonically unless counsel notify this Division the day prior
to the hearing that counsel will appear in person. If all parties appear telephonically, Plaintiff’s
counsel shall initiate the conference call. The court’s phone number is (602) 506-0341.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
01/08/2013
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2
Transmissions over cellular telephones and speaker phones are not clearly received by the
court’s phone system and, therefore, are not allowed.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall notify this Division whether the parties will be appearing
telephonically the day prior to the hearing.
The court will set a firm trial date at this conference. Counsel are advised to have their
trial calendars with them.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Proposed Scheduling
Memorandum and Scheduling Order as set forth below.
All counsel are directed to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule
16(b). Counsel shall prepare and file with the court by 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2013 a
Proposed Scheduling Memorandum and Scheduling Order. The memorandum shall address
all the matters listed in Rule 16(b) and additional items set forth below.
1.
The nature of the case; the issues, and each party’s position with respect to the
issues.
2.
An agreed upon schedule and date for completion of non-expert depositions.
As far as can reasonably be anticipated, each party shall set forth the depositions
they anticipate taking and the approximate time required for each; any and all
medical examinations which may be required of any of the parties; the person or
persons to conduct such examinations; all requests for production; and all tangible
evidence to be disclosed or exchanged.
3.
A date for the final disclosure of the identities, subject matters, and reports of
expert witnesses, and/or to supplement disclosures made to date.
4.
A date or dates for the initial and final disclosure of all non-expert witnesses,
and/or to supplement disclosures made to date.
5.
A date by which all written discovery will be propounded and concluded.
Further, counsel shall set forth any written discovery outstanding and a date when it
will be complete.
6.
The position of each counsel on whether the Rule 38.1 time limits should be
waived.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
01/08/2013
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 3
7.
The court will order the parties to participate either in a settlement conference with
a judge pro tem or a mediation with a private mediator. An agreement of all parties
is required for private mediation. The parties are to advise if such an agreement is
reached. The parties are also to advise a proposed date for the completion of the
settlement conference or mediation.
8.
Set forth any discovery disputes to date or Rule 26.1 compliance issues.
9.
A date for completion of all discovery, including expert discovery.
10.
A date by which all dispositive or partially-dispositive motions shall be filed.
11.
A proposed trial date agreed upon by all counsel and anticipated length of trial.
If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items of the Proposed Scheduling
Memorandum, the reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the Proposed
Scheduling Memorandum. All proposed deadlines shall be set forth as calendar dates, and
not in the form “XX days before trial.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall notify the court of any agreed-upon
extension of any time period provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of this order
is not to discourage extensions as a matter of professionalism, but to ensure that no party suffers
summary disposition of any issue because the court is unaware that an extension had been
granted.
Counsel are reminded that the court may impose sanctions, pursuant to Rule 16(f),
against counsel and/or their clients for failure to participate in good faith in the preparation or
timely filing of the memorandum.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
03/19/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 03/19/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/20/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JURY TRIAL SETTING
ECB-511
9:02 a.m. This is the time set for Rule 16 Pre-Trial Conference. Plaintiff, William
Stewart, is telephonically represented by counsel, Benjamin Robert Jemsek. Defendant,
Scottsdale Trails Association, is telephonically represented by counsel, Nathan T. Metzger.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding case status and future scheduling.
IT IS ORDERED setting the following schedule for disclosure, discovery, and pre-trial
procedures unless the parties obtain written modifications from the Court:
1)
March 22, 2013 – The parties and counsel shall meet and confer to identify the
exact location of the accident that caused Plaintiff’s injuries, including visiting the
location if necessary;
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
2)
March 22, 2013 – Plaintiff shall disclose all additional records from Scottsdale
Healthcare;
3)
March 22, 2013 – Plaintiff shall identify all of Plaintiff’s prior healthcare
providers;
4)
April 5, 2013 – Defendant shall identify all healthcare providers that they request
records from;
5)
April 30, 2013 - Plaintiff shall disclose the opinions and reports of his expert
witnesses;
6)
June 14, 2013 – Defendant shall identify healthcare providers who shall conduct
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) of Plaintiff and have a schedule in
place regarding same;
7)
June 17, 2013 - The parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement
conference. This case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution
for the appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference.
Counsel and/or the parties will receive a minute entry from ADR appointing the
judge pro tempore. Counsel and any “pro per” parties will contact the appointed
judge pro tempore to arrange the date, time, and location for the settlement
conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to conduct a settlement
conference not later than June 17, 2013. The Office of Alternative Dispute
Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do
not contact that office. If counsel prefer to use a private mediator to conduct the
settlement conference, a Stipulation and Order re: Alternative to ADR must be
presented to the Court by no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2013. All counsel
and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and complete
authority to settle the case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith in
the Settlement Conference. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to participate.
8)
June 28, 2013 - The parties shall disclose the names of all non-expert witnesses;
9)
August 30, 2013 - Defendant shall disclose the opinions and reports of its expert
witnesses;
10)
August 30, 2013- Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) of Plaintiff shall be
completed;
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
11)
November 1, 2013 - Dispositive motions shall be filed. Pleadings shall comply
with the Rules regarding page limitations;
Because of the short time between dispositive motions briefing and Final Trial
Management Conference, counsel are encouraged to structure discovery to allow
for dispositive motions filing as soon as practicable.
Your cooperation to label motions serially would be most appreciated. For
example, the plaintiff’s first motion to be filed would be marked, “Plaintiff’s
Motion #1 - Motion for Summary Judgment.” The response to this motion would
be marked, “Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion #1 – Motion for
Summary Judgment.” Conversely, the defendant’s first motion would be marked,
“Defendant’s Motion #1 – Motion to Dismiss.” The response to this motion
would be marked “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion #1 – Motion to
Dismiss.”
12)
December 31, 2013 - ALL discovery including written discovery and depositions
shall be completed;
All motions shall comply with Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2(f). If a motion to
exceed page limitation is accompanied with a proposed filing, counsel do so at
their own peril;
13)
February 7, 2014 - Motions in Limine and Responses thereto shall be filed. No
replies are necessary. Each pleading shall not exceed 5 pages in length;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Final Trial Management Conference in this
matter on February 14, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. (30 min.) in this division. Counsel who will try this
case shall appear in person at the Final Trial Management Conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting this matter for a 6-day Jury Trial for February
24, 2014,1 at 9:30 a.m. in this division.
THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING
NO CONTINUANCE SHALL BE GRANTED
Trial days are normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
1 One day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of settlement by 2:00 p.m. on the judicial day
before trial.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions in limine shall be filed in accordance with
Rule 7.2 of Civil Procedure and as follows:
A.
Motions in Limine shall be consecutively numbered in the caption identifying the
party filing it and the subject of the motion; e.g. “Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
No. 1 Re: Defendant’s expert;” or “Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: No
mention of insurance.”
B.
Each motion in limine shall deal with one discrete subject.
C.
DO NOT combine a motion in limine with ANY other motion.
D.
DO NOT file a “cross-motion in limine.”
E.
Label responses to motions in limine by identifying the number and subject of the
motion being responded to; e.g. “Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine No. 1 Re: Defendant’s expert.”
F.
DO NOT respond to more than one motion in limine in each response.
A joint pretrial statement (JPTS) prepared in accordance with Rule 16(d) is due 5
judicial days prior to the Final Trial Management Conference. The following shall be filed
with the JPTS:
A.
A list of the names of all witnesses who may testify to be read to the jury.
B.
A set of agreed-upon jury instructions with an additional copy on a disk, in
Word format.
C.
Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon
with an additional copy on a disk, in Word format.
D.
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if a request for same has
been or will be filed).
E.
A stipulated brief summary of the case, which the court can read at the
outset of voir dire.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
All exhibits shall be exchanged 30 days before trial. Counsel shall confer
regarding exhibits so duplicates are avoided and list any stipulations to those
exhibits which can be received in evidence. At least ten days before trial, counsel
or their knowledgeable assistants, shall call the division clerk at (602) 372-3186
to obtain written procedures for marking exhibits. At least one week before trial,
counsel shall submit all exhibits to the clerk of the division for marking. Original
depositions are provided to the clerk for the record and not marked as exhibits.
9:25 a.m. Matter concludes.
TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER
PURPOSE: These trial procedures are designed to enhance jury comprehension of the
facts and issues; to assist counsel in making the maximum, effective use of their trial time; and to
assure the “just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of the parties’ dispute.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Voir dire. Counsel may conduct a limited and reasonable examination of the
panel following the Court’s questioning. In the normal case, 15 to 20 minutes is reasonable.
Jury “conditioning” will not be allowed. Use of “mini-openings” before voir dire in lieu of a
brief statement of the case will be discussed with counsel at the pretrial management conference.
Submission of proposed voir dire instructions to the court is NOT required.
2.
Time allocations. The Court may make tentative, reasonable, presumptive time
allocations for each side. If so, your time will be charged when you have the floor, e.g., voir
dire, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, closing argument and lost time
caused by failure to have witnesses available. You will be regularly informed of time used and
time remaining. As this case proceeds, the court will consider the necessity of imposing
presumptive time limits on the parties.
3.
Notification of order of proof. Each side shall notify the other on a “rolling”
forty-eight hours’ basis of the order in which witnesses will be called. From time to time,
counsel may be asked to inform the jury of their order of proof. (Witnesses may be scheduled
out of order on agreement of counsel or, if necessary, by order of Court.)
4.
Absent witnesses. The Court encourages the use of brief, agreed-upon deposition
summaries. If the deposition was videotaped, the Court encourages use of a brief, edited extract
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6
of pertinent portions of the deposition. Videoconferencing may be arranged at the offering
party’s expense.
5.
Bench conferences are discouraged. They interrupt the trial, show a certain
rudeness in excluding the jury and do not fool the jurors, who understand that someone is trying
to keep information from them. If counsel wishes to be heard on an objection outside the
presence of the jury, he or she need merely indicate such, and the Court will direct inquiring
counsel to move to another subject. The matter will be considered at the next available recess.
One exception is jury questions. Counsel may be called to the bench when they are submitted.
6.
Jury questions will be reviewed with counsel and, if appropriate, answered at the
first available opportunity.
7.
Introduction of witnesses. If counsel wish, they may introduce each witness to
the jury after the witness is sworn and before the witness begins his or her testimony. An
introduction might include the witness’ name and occupation and a brief summary of the
witness’s proposed testimony. Alternatively, the Court will not sustain an objection to an
opening question such as, “Please tell the jury who you are and why you are here.”
8.
Expert opinions. Counsel are strongly encouraged to elicit the expert’s opinion at
the earliest, available opportunity. The hypothetical question has been abolished, and the
witness’ qualifications should have been established before trial. In the first two to five minutes,
the jury should know who the witness is and why the witness is present.
9.
Expert witnesses’ resumes (brief and descriptive) will be admitted over a hearsay
objection. Questions of length and content will be resolved before trial.
10.
Objections shall be stated succinctly and clearly without extended comment or
argument. The Court will supply the jury with a glossary of terms, which includes a definition of
some common objections, at the time the Court reads the preliminary instructions. A copy of the
glossary is attached.
11.
Permission to approach and/or publish. Counsel need not ask the Court’s
permission to approach the clerk or a witness, nor need counsel ask the Court’s permission to
publish or pass an exhibit which has been received in evidence to the jury.
12.
Interim commentaries. In cases scheduled for more than 5 court days, counsel
may request the opportunity to give 5 minute interim commentaries each week as the case
progresses. Commentaries will consist of statements of fact as to evidence presented or to be
presented and will not contain argument.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 7
13.
Microphones. Because of the acoustics of our courtroom, it is often difficult to
hear a speaker. For the benefit of the jurors and court staff, it is appreciated if all speakers use
the assistance of a microphone, whether at the podium or the attorney tables. A microphone is
also provided for witnesses.
14.
Technology. Counsel are encouraged to make maximum, effective use of the
many forms of trial and courtroom technology which are available. Counsel should ensure that
the technology is appropriately set up and working properly before its use is attempted in court.
15.
Daily schedule. A trial day is from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with lunch usually
from noon until 1:30 p.m., one fifteen-minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon.
16.
Trial interruptions. Trial will not be interrupted for discussion of legal matters.
The Court is available daily before and after trial and during regular recesses to consider such
matters.
Glossary: (to be supplied to the jurors)
Some Words and Phrases You May Hear
During the trial, you may hear these words or phrases:
“Deposition.” A deposition is the testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is
placed under oath, and the lawyers may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded.
“Disclosure.” Our rules require the parties to exchange certain information before trial. An
objection of “non-disclosure” is a claim that the other party has not disclosed the information before
trial.
“Discovery.” Discovery is another way the parties may obtain information from other
parties or third persons before trial. Depositions and interrogatories are examples of discovery.
“Foundation.” An objection to lack of foundation is a claim that more preliminary
information is needed before a question can be answered or a document admitted into evidence.
“Hearsay.” Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the contents of
the statement. Hearsay is generally not admissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule,
and some out-of-court statements are not hearsay.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
03/19/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 8
“Interrogatory.” An interrogatory is a written question submitted before trial to a party or
witness to be answered under oath.
“Leading.” A leading question is one which suggests the answer. The law prefers the
answer to come from the witness’s own knowledge and words. Leading questions are sometimes
allowed; examples are cross-examination of an opposing party or hostile witness, preliminary
questions and questions about technical subjects.
“Rule____.” Proceedings in court are governed by rules of evidence and rules of procedure.
A lawyer may cite a specific rule in arguing for or against an objection.
“Voir dire.” This French phrase means “to tell the truth.” It describes a preliminary
examination of a witness or juror sworn to tell the truth. Jury selection is often referred to as “voir
dire.” An opposing lawyer may ask to “voir dire” a witness to ask questions about a document or
testimony the witness is about to offer.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
05/20/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 05/20/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/22/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
05/20/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference
Deadline and Order thereto.
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties request all in accordance with the formal written
Order to Continue Settlement Conference Deadline signed by the Court on May 13, 2013, and
filed by the Clerk on May 20, 2013.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED the parties may have until August 16, 2013, to
conduct the settlement conference.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
07/31/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 07/31/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/01/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
07/31/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
A. Melchert
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
ORDER SIGNED
The Court has considered the Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference Deadline.
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting Order to Continue Settlement Conference
Deadline, all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on July 24, 2013
and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 31, 2013.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order were not available for mailing to the
parties. Copies of this order may be obtained from the Customer Service Center located at 601
W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
10/08/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 10/08/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/10/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
10/08/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom ECB-511:
3:13 p.m. This is the time set for Status Conference. Plaintiff, William Stewart, is
telephonically represented by counsel, Benjamin Robert Jemsek. Defendants, Brown
Community Management, Inc. and Scottsdale Trails Association, are telephonically represented
by counsel, Nathan T. Metzger.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Deposition Fee of Brian
Miller, M.D.
The issue has been raised with the Court regarding the deposition fee to be paid to Brian
Miller, M.D. Dr. Miller charges $750.00 per hour with a two hour minimum, or $1500.00 total,
which is nonrefundable. Further, Dr. Miller has advised counsel that he will not agree to a
deposition date until he receives prepayment in full, as well as a list of questions that will be
asked of him at the deposition.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
10/08/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
In Sanchez v. Gama, et al., 2013 WL 4430914 ¶19 (Ariz. App. Div. 1), the Court
addressed the legal basis of paying an expert witness fee to a treating physician. After reviewing
a treating physician’s factual role in litigation, the Court held that an expert witness fee will
typically not be required.
¶19 Therefore, we hold that Whitten is applicable to physicians in civil litigation.
Whether a treating physician is a fact or expert witness depends on the content of
the physician’s testimony. When a treating doctor is testifying only to the injury,
medical treatment, and other first-hand knowledge not obtained for purposes of
litigation, the treating doctor is a fact witness and need not be compensated as an
expert.
In light of Sanchez and the avowal that Dr. Miller will be deposed as Plaintiff’s treating
physician,
THE COURT FINDS that Dr. Miller is not legally entitled to an expert witness fee.
IT IS ORDERED the parties arrange for a mutually convenient time and place to take
Dr. Miller’s deposition.
The Court knows of no ground for a witness to be provided the deposition questions
before the deposition session.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the parties are not required to submit questions to the
witness prior to the deposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Dr. Miller contests any aspect of the Court’s
Orders, he may file objections and request a hearing with this Court, no later than October 25,
2013. Failure to do so will constitute a waiver of those objections and expose Dr. Miller to a
citation of contempt, if he refuses to appear for his deposition as arranged.
3:25 p.m. Hearing concludes.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
10/08/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
11/04/2013 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 11/04/2013 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
11/04/2013
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
CASE SETTLED/INACTIVE CALENDAR
Notice of Settlement having been filed on October 29, 2013,
IT IS ORDERED as of the date of this minute entry, placing this matter on the Inactive
Calendar for dismissal on January 6, 2014, without further notice, unless prior to that date a
judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and
certificate of readiness is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating all further court settings.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
12/28/2012 — CV2012011712 MANAGEMENT INC, BROWN COMMUNITY 12/28/2012 HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/03/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
12/28/2012
Docket Code 098
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
WILLIAM STEWART
BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK
v.
BROWN COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC,
et al.
NATHAN T METZGER
MARK K SAHL
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered Defendant’s Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel and Order
thereto.
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the request for Substitution of Counsel all in accordance with
the formal written Order Re: Substitution of Counsel signed by the Court on December 3, 2012,
and filed by the Clerk on December 28, 2012.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED substituting counsel, Nathan T. Metzger and the law
firm of Penilla Metzger, PLLC, in place and instead of the Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado &
Bolen, PLC law firm to represent Defendant, Scottsdale Trails Association, in all further
proceedings.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order were not available for mailing to the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2012-011712
12/28/2012
Docket Code 098
Form V000A
Page 2
parties. Copies of this order may be obtained from the Customer Service Center located at 601
W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
