AUA sues Arkansas board

[futureboy]

What's the current situation of this case now?

I just checked the court docket, and there are no new filings. There probably won't be anything to report until after the scheduling conference with the court set for July 27, 2009.

[nevisbutterfly]

Does anyone have any information about any updates on the AUA federal lawsuit case against the Arkansas Medical Board?

If you do, please let us all know.

[futureboy]

Looks like they've pushed everything back 30 days. These types of continuances/extensions are common in civil litigation. From the court docket:

ORDER granting pltfs' 13 Motion for Extension of Time; Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 8/28/2009; Rule 26(f) Report due by 9/11/2009; the deadline for issuance of the final scheduling order is extended to 9/18/09. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 7/27/09. (vjt) (Entered: 07/27/2009

[futureboy]

Looks like the parties are setting up a meeting to try to settle the case. Here is the text of the motion to extend the court deadlines, from the court docket (emphasis added by me):

Plaintiffs, American University of Antigua College of Medicine, Shreekanth Cheruku, Anjan Patel, Amber Milward, and Justin T. Harney, move to extend the time for the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference, until and including August 28, 2009; to extend the deadline for the Rule 26(f) report, until and including, September 11, 2009; and to extend the deadline for the issuance of the final scheduling order, until and including, September 18, 2009. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs state:
1. Defendants have agreed to this motion and the relief it requests.
2. The Court in its Initial Scheduling Order (docket number 9), set the Rule 26(f) conference deadline for July 27, 2009, the Rule 26(f) report deadline for August 10, 2009, and the deadline for the issuance of a final scheduling order for August 17, 2009.
3. The parties are in the process of arranging a settlement meeting for August 7, 2009, which may obviate the need for a Rule 26(f) conference at all.
4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(A), a court may extend the time to perform an act for good cause. Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly agree that cause exists for these extensions of time, as it will provide the parties the opportunity to potentially resolve this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant this motion and extend the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference, until and including, August 28, 2009; extend the deadline for the Rule 26(f) report, until and including, September 11, 2009; and extend the deadline for the final scheduling order, until and including, September 18, 2009.
DATED: July 24, 2009.

[jonasp]

My guess is Arkansas will still adopt ca. list but those not approved or disapproved will become case by case instead of automatically banned.Other states do this and it seems to meet somewhere in between.SMU would be the only decent school screwed but they have to get off that ca.list anyway with or without arkansas, there is no 2 ways about it.

[MaxPower311]

so i guess if smu never invited california to visit we'd be okay on this one?? Seems a little insane

[azskeptic]

To me it seems logical that schools should try to meet all 50 states rules so that the grads could license anywhere. It would be like buying a Rolls Royce ($200,000 or so) and not being able to drive it someplace.

so i guess if smu never invited california to visit we'd be okay on this one?? Seems a little insane

[jonasp]

yeah it does seem insane.Azskeptic is right though the school was approved in NY and FL. They were going for nationwide recognition with Ca., granted in retrospect they were not ready but all signs pointed towards them being approved everywhere.With or without Arkansas the school needs to get off that list.That has been the main thorn on the school's side the past 5 years and is going to separate them from schools they are just as good as if not better than.

[Arkie]

Well...today's the day.

[Shiz77]

We probably won't get any news till Mon or Tue.

[Arkie]

The meeting has been postponed.

[nevisbutterfly]

Please understand how biased and unfair the California Medical Board is. How can they add a school to the list without a site review? The bylaws of the California Medical Board indicates that since the medical school is located in a country and trains physicians to practice outside of that country then they are subjected to many questions, site review, expense of application and travel expense. If you need more information of this please let me know and I will send you a copy of "how CA evaluates and adds medical schools to their list of approved schools.


Subj: ELAM added to CA list - mission to educate non-citizens - no site review by board

ELAM website:
Latin American Medical School - ELAM (http://www.medicc.org/ns/index.php?s=10&p=0)

July 2008 the California Medical Board added this Cuban Medical School to it's list of approved schools without a site review. See the full attached document and the quote from the document below.
Thought this might be of interest to both of you. You will find the full text attached which was written by the California Medical Board. This is disparity and I hope that the lawyers in NY and AR knows about this or can use this. California Medical Board makes it clear that they do site visits and require an extensive costly application process if the medical school in located in a country and trains physicians to practice medicine outside the country. Again discrimination and disparity. How is this any different than AUA, MUA or SMU?
Might want to take a look and pass this along.

I found this in this article
http://havanajournal.com/culture/entry/california-approves-cuban-medical-school-graduates-for-practice/ (http://havanajournal.com/culture/entry/california-approves-cuban-medical-school-graduates-for-practice/)


ELAM's mission is to educate non-citizens to practice medicine outside Cuba

Where and What is ELAM: Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM) in Havana, Cuba


The Escuela Latinoamericana de Medicina (ELAM) in Havana, Cuba, was founded in
1999. The Board presently recognizes several medical schools in Cuba whose primary
purpose is to educate Cuban citizens to practice medicine in Cuba. ELAM's mission is to
educate non-citizens to practice medicine outside Cuba.



ELAM has been in existence since November 15, 1999. Its mission is to "contribute to
the training of Primary Health Care physicians in diverse regions of the World." The
students who come to the School are diverse and come from 22 different countries.
Consistent with this mission there are "46 different indigenous Latin American ethnic
groups among its student body." This is a 6-year program designed for students who
have not completed premedical education. The School provided their 3 16 page book
"Curriculum for the Degree in Medicine" written by the "Center of Higher Medical
Education" for the "Republic of Cuba, Ministry of Public Health, Educational and
Research Area." The information in this book is well organized and indicates that this
Program has an effective mission to educate physicians who are competent and capable
of entering the next level of training; specifically, training in a residency program.


For full report from CA Medical board see link:
http://www.mbc.ca.gov/board/meetings...arterly-7c.pdf (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/board/meetings/materials_2008_07-25_quarterly-7c.pdf)

[nevisbutterfly]

http://www.mbc.ca.gov/board/meetings/materials_2009_03-25_IMS-Regs.pdf

Read page 3 of 21 to understand how medical schools are approved in California.

[nevisbutterfly]

Application Process - US Students
Applications for US students are administered by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO/Pastors for Peace) in New York City. Their very goodFAQ page supplies many answers to questions posed by prospective students. (http://www.ifconews.org/MedicalSchool/freq_asked_questions.htm)
While US students must also fill out an application, supply supporting paperwork and do an interview, there are some differences from the general application process outlined above. These include:
<LI class=bodytext>Submitting letters of reference; a personal essay; and medical history; <LI class=bodytext>Minimum one-year, college-level coursework in biology, physics, and organic and inorganic chemistry (both with lab); <LI class=bodytext>Participating in a two-day orientation workshop; and
Applicants may be up to 30 years of age when they apply.
MCAT standardized test scores are not required.
Contact IFCO for application or additional information:
418 West 145th Street, New York, NY 10031
Tel: 212-926-5757, Fax: 212-926-5842
Email: lasm@igc.org, (lasm@igc.org)ifco@igc.org
(ifco@igc.org)Website: www.ifconews.org (http://www.ifconews.org)


_____________________

What? You must be under 30? You only need one year of college. How can US students go to Cuba when it is illegal to do so?

The school headquarters are in New York.

[nevisbutterfly]

The Medical School Scholarship Program | ::: IFCO / Pastors for Peace ::: (http://www.ifconews.org/MedicalSchool/node/351)

Take a look at this video:

Note the outdated 50's cars, run down buildings, propaganda on billboards.

one student admits that the medical equipment they are using is old and was used in the 80's in the US.

I am not passing judgement on the students there. I just continue to see the disparity of the California approved medical school list and all the states that have elected to adopt such a list and rules.

I am in residency with several Cuban nationals who graduated from other schools in Cuba and they have told me of the very low pay of doctors, the working conditions, lack of medical equipment such as dialysis etc...that is why they defected and came here.

[bstone]

Any news? Eager to know.

[Shiz77]

Yes are there any updates??

[RussianJoo]

yep well it's past the 9/11 deadline so what's the story? I am still sticking to my prediction.

[futureboy]

Here is the text of the joint report filed by both sides (see below). It outlines the proposed schedule for discovery (exchange of documents and information), and indicates that the parties do not think the court's November 2009 trial date allows enough time to prepare the case. They ask that the court reschedule the trial for on or after August 2, 2010.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, et al.
PLAINTIFFS
v. 4:09-CV-306 SWW
ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL
BOARD, et al.
DEFENDANTS
JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26.1 of
the Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of
Arkansas, plaintiffs and defendants submit the following for their Joint Rule 26(f)
Report:
1. Any change in timing, form, or requirement of mandatory disclosures under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C), the parties have stipulated that initial
disclosures may be made by September 25, 2009. Otherwise, the parties do not
propose any change in the form or requirement of mandatory disclosures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).
2. Date when mandatory disclosures were or will be made.
The parties have agreed to serve their initial disclosures on one another no later
than Friday, September 25, 2009.
3. Subjects on which discovery may be needed.
The plaintiffs incorporate the defendants’ list of anticipated discovery topics, and
in addition, anticipate conducting discovery on the following subjects:
• All evidence concerning what the defendants relied on to determine the
Board’s list of unapproved medical schools, how that determination was made, when that determination was made, and by whom.
• All evidence concerning what information defendants’ possessed regarding American University of Antigua College of Medicine at the time they developed their list of unapproved medical schools.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 1 of 6
• The nature and substance of any evidence the defendants intend to introduce at trial, including lay and expert witness testimony, documentary evidence, and any non-documentary physical evidence.
• Further, discovery has just commenced in this action, and plaintiffs reserve the right to seek all discovery in this matter permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants plan to conduct discovery concerning the following issues:
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the ASMB, its members, the AMA, the AAMC and/or the LCME; (See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 82-83)
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations that the AMA, AAMC and/or the LCME has allegedly restricted the number of medical schools permitted to exist in the United States and the number of students who are granted placement in those schools; (See Compl. ¶ 80)
• Any evidence that the AMA, AAMC and/or the LCME has acted out of a motivation to “protect their monopolistic power base in the world medical community” by striving to “preclude or limit competition from Americans who do not graduate from schools under their aegis” and to “preserve the critical shortage of medical professionals in the United States so as to drive up the price for medical services for those doctors who are graduates of schools under the LCME’s (and, therefore, the AMA’s and AAMC’s) aegis.” (See Compl. ¶ 81)
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants violated ASMB Regulation 3 and any evidence that the defendants intentionally violated ASMB Regulation 3 and/or made determinations as to which schools would be included on the “Disapproved Medical Schools” list “based solely upon whether the school had been approved by the California State Medical Board”; (See Compl. ¶ 85)
• Any evidence of AUA’s alleged pre-litigation demand that the defendants remove AUA’s name from the ASMB list of “Disapproved Medical Schools” and any evidence of the defendants’ alleged refusal to remove AUA from that list; (See Compl. ¶ 71)
• Any evidence of AUA’s pre-litigation efforts to obtain approval from the ASMB; (See Compl. ¶ 71)
• Any evidence of plaintiffs Cheruku and Patel’s efforts to secure a residency position in the State of Arkansas and in other states; (See Compl. ¶ 46-47)
• General biographical and educational information concerning the individual plaintiffs, as well as biographical and statistical information concerning AUA;
• Any evidence supporting plaintiffs AUA, Cheruku and Patel’s defamation claims, such as the identification and evidence of all allegedly defamatory statements, the identification of any witnesses to the alleged defamatory statements, any evidence of injury to the plaintiffs’ reputations or other
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 2 of 6
allegedly resultant harm to the plaintiffs following the alleged defamatory statements, and any evidence of causation; (See Compl. ¶¶ 106-111)
• The amount of the plaintiffs’ claimed damages and the method by which the plaintiffs calculated their claimed damages; (See Compl. ¶¶ 106-111)
and
• The nature and substance of any evidence the plaintiffs intend to introduce at trial, including lay and expert witness testimony, documentary evidence, and any non-documentary physical evidence.
Each party reserves the right to object to any discovery request of any other party.
4. Whether any party will likely be requested to disclose or produce information from electronic or computer-based media.

The parties do anticipate requesting the disclosure or production of information

from one another from electronic or computer-based media.

(a) Whether disclosure or production will be limited to data reasonably
available to the parties in the ordinary course of business.
Yes.
(b) The anticipated scope, cost and time required for disclosure or
production of data beyond what is reasonably available to the parties
in the ordinary course of business.
Not applicable.
(c) The format and media agreed to by the parties for the production of
such data as well as agreed procedures for such production.
The parties have agreed to produce such data in .pdf or .tif format either
by email, or on a CD, DVD, or flash drive.
(d) Whether reasonable measures have been taken to preserve potentially
discoverable data from alteration or destruction in the ordinary
course of business or otherwise.
Yes.
(e) Other problems which the parties anticipate may arise in connection
with electronic or computer-based discovery.
None.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 3 of 6
5. Date by which discovery should be completed.
Friday, April 30, 2009.
6. Any needed changes in limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The parties jointly request that the Court enter an order reflecting the following changes in the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:








• That the permissible number of interrogatories be increased to thirty-five per side; and• That the permissible number of depositions be increased to twenty-five per side.




The parties also anticipate conducting additional discovery from third-parties, but the parties do not anticipate needing any changes in the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with third-party discovery.
7. Any Orders, e.g., protective orders, which should be entered.
At present, the parties do not see a need for the entry of a protective order. However, as discovery progresses, the parties foresee the possibility that protective orders might become necessary for the following purposes:

• To prohibit further disclosure of personal and scholastic information concerning the individual named plaintiffs that might be produced to the defendants in discovery;
• To protect from disclosure certain personal and scholastic information about AUA students other than the named individual plaintiffs;
• To protect from disclosure certain personal or licensing information about ASMB licensees;
• To prohibit further disclosure of personal or licensing information about ASMB licensees that might be produced to the plaintiffs in discovery.
In stating these possibilities, the parties are not stating a position as to whether the information described above is or is not discoverable. Rather, the parties merely wish to bring these issues to the Court’s attention as discovery issues upon which the parties will try to resolve any disagreements that might arise, but which they reasonably foresee as possibly requiring a protective order or other Court intervention.
8. Any objections to initial disclosures on the ground that mandatory disclosures are not appropriate in the circumstances of the action.


No.
9. Any objections to the proposed trial date.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 4 of 6
Proposed Trial Date on Initial Scheduling Order (D.E. No. 9) is November 23,
2009. The parties believe this date will not allow sufficient time to complete
discovery and prepare the case for trial. The parties request a trial date at the
Court’s earliest convenience on or after August 2, 2010.
10. Proposed deadline for joining other parties and amending the pleadings.
Friday, February 26, 2010.
11. Proposed deadline for completing discovery.
Friday, April 30, 2010.
12. Proposed deadline for filing motions.
Friday, May 28, 2010 (except motions in limine).
Respectfully Submitted,
LEONARD A. SCLAFANI, P.C.
2 Wall Street – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 696-9880
AND
SHULTS LAW FIRM
200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1600
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3637
(501) 375-2301
By: /s/ Steven Shults
Steven Shults
Ark. Bar No. 78139
John P. Perkins, III
Ark. Bar No. 2005252
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AND
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 5 of 6
6
DUSTIN McDANIEL,
Attorney General
By: /s/ Mark N. Ohrenberger
Mark N. Ohrenberger, ABN 2005151
Assistant Attorney General
Arkansas Office of Attorney General
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610
Telephone: (501) 682-3665
Facsimile: (501) 682-2591
mark.ohrenberger@arkansasag.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark N. Ohrenberger, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that on this
10th day of September, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to any CM/ECF
participants:
Ms. Debra K. Brown
Email: dbrown@shultslaw.com
Mr. John Peyton Perkins, III
Email: jperkins@shultslaw.com
Mr. Steven T. Shults
Email: sshults@shultslaw.com
I, Mark N. Ohrenberger, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that on this
10th day of September, 2009, I mailed the document by United States Postal Service to
the following non CM/ECF participants:
Mr. Leonard A. Scalfani
Attorney at Law
2 Wall Street, Ste. 500
New York, NY 10005








/s/ Mark N. Ohrenberger

Mark N. Ohrenberger

[bstone]

August 2010? Oy....

[RussianJoo]

haha.. welcome to the US court system.. This will drag on till someone runs out of money, somehow i think Arkansas has more money to spend on lawyers than AUA.

[azskeptic]

Would appear that the parties weren't able to settle it and are going to trial. 2010 in a case like this is fairly early---they can go on for 2-3 years or more. Our resident attorny can comment more on this for us....Genossa?


Here is the text of the joint report filed by both sides (see below). It outlines the proposed schedule for discovery (exchange of documents and information), and indicates that the parties do not think the court's November 2009 trial date allows enough time to prepare the case. They ask that the court reschedule the trial for on or after August 2, 2010.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, et al.
PLAINTIFFS
v. 4:09-CV-306 SWW
ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL
BOARD, et al.
DEFENDANTS
JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26.1 of
the Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of
Arkansas, plaintiffs and defendants submit the following for their Joint Rule 26(f)
Report:
1. Any change in timing, form, or requirement of mandatory disclosures under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C), the parties have stipulated that initial
disclosures may be made by September 25, 2009. Otherwise, the parties do not
propose any change in the form or requirement of mandatory disclosures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).
2. Date when mandatory disclosures were or will be made.
The parties have agreed to serve their initial disclosures on one another no later
than Friday, September 25, 2009.
3. Subjects on which discovery may be needed.
The plaintiffs incorporate the defendants’ list of anticipated discovery topics, and
in addition, anticipate conducting discovery on the following subjects:
• All evidence concerning what the defendants relied on to determine the
Board’s list of unapproved medical schools, how that determination was made, when that determination was made, and by whom.
• All evidence concerning what information defendants’ possessed regarding American University of Antigua College of Medicine at the time they developed their list of unapproved medical schools.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 1 of 6
• The nature and substance of any evidence the defendants intend to introduce at trial, including lay and expert witness testimony, documentary evidence, and any non-documentary physical evidence.
• Further, discovery has just commenced in this action, and plaintiffs reserve the right to seek all discovery in this matter permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants plan to conduct discovery concerning the following issues:
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the ASMB, its members, the AMA, the AAMC and/or the LCME; (See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 82-83)
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations that the AMA, AAMC and/or the LCME has allegedly restricted the number of medical schools permitted to exist in the United States and the number of students who are granted placement in those schools; (See Compl. ¶ 80)
• Any evidence that the AMA, AAMC and/or the LCME has acted out of a motivation to “protect their monopolistic power base in the world medical community” by striving to “preclude or limit competition from Americans who do not graduate from schools under their aegis” and to “preserve the critical shortage of medical professionals in the United States so as to drive up the price for medical services for those doctors who are graduates of schools under the LCME’s (and, therefore, the AMA’s and AAMC’s) aegis.” (See Compl. ¶ 81)
• Any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants violated ASMB Regulation 3 and any evidence that the defendants intentionally violated ASMB Regulation 3 and/or made determinations as to which schools would be included on the “Disapproved Medical Schools” list “based solely upon whether the school had been approved by the California State Medical Board”; (See Compl. ¶ 85)
• Any evidence of AUA’s alleged pre-litigation demand that the defendants remove AUA’s name from the ASMB list of “Disapproved Medical Schools” and any evidence of the defendants’ alleged refusal to remove AUA from that list; (See Compl. ¶ 71)
• Any evidence of AUA’s pre-litigation efforts to obtain approval from the ASMB; (See Compl. ¶ 71)
• Any evidence of plaintiffs Cheruku and Patel’s efforts to secure a residency position in the State of Arkansas and in other states; (See Compl. ¶ 46-47)
• General biographical and educational information concerning the individual plaintiffs, as well as biographical and statistical information concerning AUA;
• Any evidence supporting plaintiffs AUA, Cheruku and Patel’s defamation claims, such as the identification and evidence of all allegedly defamatory statements, the identification of any witnesses to the alleged defamatory statements, any evidence of injury to the plaintiffs’ reputations or other
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 2 of 6
allegedly resultant harm to the plaintiffs following the alleged defamatory statements, and any evidence of causation; (See Compl. ¶¶ 106-111)
• The amount of the plaintiffs’ claimed damages and the method by which the plaintiffs calculated their claimed damages; (See Compl. ¶¶ 106-111)
and
• The nature and substance of any evidence the plaintiffs intend to introduce at trial, including lay and expert witness testimony, documentary evidence, and any non-documentary physical evidence.
Each party reserves the right to object to any discovery request of any other party.
4. Whether any party will likely be requested to disclose or produce information from electronic or computer-based media.

The parties do anticipate requesting the disclosure or production of information

from one another from electronic or computer-based media.

(a) Whether disclosure or production will be limited to data reasonably

available to the parties in the ordinary course of business.
Yes.
(b) The anticipated scope, cost and time required for disclosure or
production of data beyond what is reasonably available to the parties
in the ordinary course of business.
Not applicable.
(c) The format and media agreed to by the parties for the production of
such data as well as agreed procedures for such production.
The parties have agreed to produce such data in .pdf or .tif format either
by email, or on a CD, DVD, or flash drive.
(d) Whether reasonable measures have been taken to preserve potentially
discoverable data from alteration or destruction in the ordinary
course of business or otherwise.
Yes.
(e) Other problems which the parties anticipate may arise in connection
with electronic or computer-based discovery.
None.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 3 of 6
5. Date by which discovery should be completed.
Friday, April 30, 2009.
6. Any needed changes in limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The parties jointly request that the Court enter an order reflecting the following changes in the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:











• That the permissible number of interrogatories be increased to thirty-five per side; and• That the permissible number of depositions be increased to twenty-five per side.





The parties also anticipate conducting additional discovery from third-parties, but the parties do not anticipate needing any changes in the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with third-party discovery.
7. Any Orders, e.g., protective orders, which should be entered.
At present, the parties do not see a need for the entry of a protective order. However, as discovery progresses, the parties foresee the possibility that protective orders might become necessary for the following purposes:

• To prohibit further disclosure of personal and scholastic information concerning the individual named plaintiffs that might be produced to the defendants in discovery;
• To protect from disclosure certain personal and scholastic information about AUA students other than the named individual plaintiffs;
• To protect from disclosure certain personal or licensing information about ASMB licensees;
• To prohibit further disclosure of personal or licensing information about ASMB licensees that might be produced to the plaintiffs in discovery.
In stating these possibilities, the parties are not stating a position as to whether the information described above is or is not discoverable. Rather, the parties merely wish to bring these issues to the Court’s attention as discovery issues upon which the parties will try to resolve any disagreements that might arise, but which they reasonably foresee as possibly requiring a protective order or other Court intervention.
8. Any objections to initial disclosures on the ground that mandatory disclosures are not appropriate in the circumstances of the action.


No.

9. Any objections to the proposed trial date.
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 4 of 6
Proposed Trial Date on Initial Scheduling Order (D.E. No. 9) is November 23,
2009. The parties believe this date will not allow sufficient time to complete
discovery and prepare the case for trial. The parties request a trial date at the
Court’s earliest convenience on or after August 2, 2010.
10. Proposed deadline for joining other parties and amending the pleadings.
Friday, February 26, 2010.
11. Proposed deadline for completing discovery.
Friday, April 30, 2010.
12. Proposed deadline for filing motions.
Friday, May 28, 2010 (except motions in limine).
Respectfully Submitted,
LEONARD A. SCLAFANI, P.C.
2 Wall Street – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 696-9880
AND
SHULTS LAW FIRM
200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1600
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3637
(501) 375-2301
By: /s/ Steven Shults
Steven Shults
Ark. Bar No. 78139
John P. Perkins, III
Ark. Bar No. 2005252
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AND
Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 5 of 6
6
DUSTIN McDANIEL,
Attorney General
By: /s/ Mark N. Ohrenberger
Mark N. Ohrenberger, ABN 2005151
Assistant Attorney General
Arkansas Office of Attorney General
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610
Telephone: (501) 682-3665
Facsimile: (501) 682-2591
mark.ohrenberger@arkansasag.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark N. Ohrenberger, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that on this
10th day of September, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to any CM/ECF
participants:
Ms. Debra K. Brown
Email: dbrown@shultslaw.com
Mr. John Peyton Perkins, III
Email: jperkins@shultslaw.com
Mr. Steven T. Shults
Email: sshults@shultslaw.com
I, Mark N. Ohrenberger, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that on this
10th day of September, 2009, I mailed the document by United States Postal Service to
the following non CM/ECF participants:
Mr. Leonard A. Scalfani
Attorney at Law
2 Wall Street, Ste. 500
New York, NY 10005










/s/ Mark N. Ohrenberger


Mark N. Ohrenberger

[Aviv Imanuel]

Not uncommon for these cases to drag for a couple of years on average. By the time it is solved, it may become moot.

[futureboy]

Not uncommon for these cases to drag for a couple of years on average. By the time it is solved, it may become moot.

15-16 months from filing to the trial actually isn't bad for a civil case, especially if they plan on taking several depositions.

[Aviv Imanuel]

That is assuming neither plaintiff or defendant play the...extensions game. What you see there is under ideal conditions. 15-16 months from filing to the trial actually isn't bad for a civil case, especially if they plan on taking several depositions.

[nevisbutterfly]

Why is the attorney general of Arkansas defending this case when the Office of the Governor of Arkansas told me that they had no jurisdiction over the Arkansas Medical Board and the Arkansas Medical Board is an independent entity which is non profit and self supporting. Professional fees has been paid out in the tune of over $200,000 in 2007 - I suppose this goes to Bill Trice the attorney who is not listed as one of the lawyers in the case. Bill Trice is not named in the lawsuit nor as an attorney defending the case. Members of the board do not get paid - they are only reimbursed for expenses related to board business.

The lawsuit is against the medical board members. The State of Arkansas was not listed in the lawsuit and the citizens of Arkansas should not have to pay the lawyer bill for The Arkansas Medical Board Members.

The State of Arkansas does not contribute to the operating expenses of The Arkansas Medical Board - no appropriations of State Funds in the past have been allocated - nor does the Arkansas Medical Board turn over its collections of fines and licensing fees to the State of Arkansas.

http://www.state.ar.us/dfa/budget/budget_manuals1008/manual_1/summary_by_agency_manual_1/0274_medical_board.pdf
page 188: The Board is a cash agency and entirely self supporting....

According to the financial sheet the Arkansas Medical Board has
$2,915,249 in cash and assets minus liabilities.

http://www.legaudit.state.ar.us/AuditReports/StateAgencies/2008/SA0827408.pdf

[futureboy]

The medical board is a state agency, and the state attorney general's office provides an attorney for state agencies. It's that way in my state, and I assume in many others, too. As for the board members being named individually, it's probably just a pleading requirement for suits against the board.

[tennisball80]

So what's up with the case now?

[futureboy]

So what's up with the case now?

Trial is set for September 13, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. Here is the Court's final scheduling order filed 10/26/09:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, ET AL
Plaintiff(s)

v.

ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL BOARD, ET AL Defendant(s)
Case No. 4:09CV00306 SWW






FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter is now scheduled for trial to the Court in LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas, during the week beginning SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, at 9:30 A.M.. Counsel are to be present 30 minutes prior to trial.



1. DISCOVERY COMPLETION

All discovery including evidentiary depositions, shall be completed no later than APRIL 30, 2010. The parties may conduct discovery beyond this date if all parties are in agreement to do so; however, the Court will not be available to resolve any disputes which arise during the course of this



extended discovery.

2. MOTIONS DEADLINES
a. Motions to amend the pleadings (including the complaint) shall be filed
by



FEBRUARY 26, 2010;

b. Motions in limine shall be filed within the 10 calendar days prior to trial; however, all motions shall be filed no later than 3:00 p.m. on Friday prior to the trial date;

and,

c. All other motions, including motions for summary judgment, motions to dismiss,
and motions pursuant to


Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), shall be filed by APRIL 30, 2010.



FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE MAY RESULT IN

DENIAL OF SUCH MOTION/PLEADING SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF UNTIMELY FILING.






Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 18 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 3

3. PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET
The Pretrial Disclosure Sheet as outlined in Local Rule 26.2 shall be filed with the Clerk by AUGUST 13, 2010.




4. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

After discovery has been completed, the parties may request a settlement conference to be conducted by the Magistrate Judge. The request for such a settlement conference should be made no later than 30 calendar days prior to trial date.



5. STIPULATION OF AGREED FACTS

A comprehensive stipulation of agreed facts shall be filed with the Clerk no later than 10 calendar days prior to trial.



6. TRIAL BRIEFS & PROPOSED FFCL

Simultaneous trial briefs and proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are to be submitted to the Court 15 calendar days prior to trial. If possible, the Court requests counsel to provide the findings of fact/conclusions of law saved as a WordPerfect document or Rich Text Format file attached to an e-mail addressed to swwchambers@ared.uscourts.gov. Please type the case name and number in the subject box. Otherwise, the Court requests counsel to provide the findings of fact/conclusions of law on a 3 ½” diskette, along with the written copy.



The parties are urged to e-mail the briefs to

swwchambers@ared.uscourts.gov with electronic links to citations. Both Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have software available for download free of charge: http://west.thomson.com/software/westcitelink, http://support.lexis-nexis.com/citationtools2001.

Use of these tools in word processing documents (Corel Word Perfect or Microsoft Word) will provide automatic links to the full text documents in Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis. Further, the Court encourages the parties to utilize citation-checking services available online.

7. STATISTICAL DATA
Any statistical data to be introduced into evidence shall be reduced to graph, chart or other






Case 4:09-cv-00306-SWW Document 18 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 2 of 3

comprehensive written form and presented to the court 15 calendar days prior to trial. Any objection to the statistics or the factual basis thereof shall be delivered 5 calendar days thereafter.



8. MARKING & EXCHANGE OF ALL EXHIBITS

To avoid delay during trial, counsel shall mark and exchange all exhibits prior to trial, stipulating to as many as possible. The exhibits are to be listed in numerical sequence. Note stipulations and objections on the exhibit list. If there is an objection to an exhibit, attach a statement setting out the basis for both the offer and the objection. The list is to be delivered/mailed to Cecilia Norwood no later than 5 calendar days prior to trial.



9. MERGERS & ACQUISTITIONS

If any party is a publicly-traded corporation, counsel should keep the Court advised of any actual merger or a pending acquisition so that the Court might prevent conflicts of interest from arising from the Judge's financial holdings.
10. COURTROOM TECHNOLOGY
The Court will contact counsel prior to trial to inquire whether counsel are familiar with the Court's electronic equipment for presentation of evidence. If necessary, the Court will schedule a pretrial courtroom visit in order that counsel may become familiar with this electronic equipment, which the Court expects counsel to use during presentation of documentary evidence at trial.





If the parties anticipate bringing any electronic devices into the courthouse for any proceeding

or the trial in this matter, please review General Order No. 54 filed March 24, 2008.

In the event of settlement, please notify Ms. Cecilia Norwood at (501) 604-5104 immediately.



IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of October 2009.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[nevisbutterfly]

Thanks for posting the court update.

[futureboy]

You're welcome. The wheels of justice turn slowly...