Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19STCV15642, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV15642 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, July 26, 2022
Department B Calendar No.5
PROCEEDINGS
Steven M. Krantz v. Shahrzad Fattahi Zarrinnam, D.D.S., et al.
19STCV15642
Shahrzad Fattahi Zarrinnam, D.D.S.’s Motion for Protective Order
TENTATIVE RULING
Shahrzad Fattahi Zarrinnam, D.D.S.’s Motion for Protective Order is moot, in part, and denied, in part.
Background
Plaintiff Steven M. Krantz filed his Complaint on May 6, 2019. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff signed up with Del Dental Group in March of 2017. Plaintiff sought to repair chips in his top left front tooth and right front tooth. During Plaintiff’s initial consultation with Dr. Shahrzad Fattahi Zarrinnam, D.D.S., Dr. Zarrinnam stated that Plaintiff would need veneers or crowns. Also Dr. Zarrinnam stated that Plaintiff did not need a root canal. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly failed to refer Plaintiff to a periodontist and endodontist for repairs and buildups. Dr. Zarrinnam’s treatment plan for Plaintiff’s two front teeth, numbers 8 and 9, was unnecessary and resulted in the teeth numbers 8 and 9 being overtreated. Now, Plaintiff’s two front teeth are bulky ill-fitting crowns. Dr. Zarrinnam’s treatment plan and treatment by her dentist at Del Dental Group was sub-standard and caused Plaintiff injuries. Plaintiff alleged a sole cause of action for General Negligence.
Motion for Protective Order
The Court is authorized to limit discovery through a protective order. The order may be granted on motion of any party or other person affected by the discovery sought. CCP §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.020(b), 2019.030(a). A protective order may be obtained to limit the frequency or extent of use of any discovery method on any of the following grounds: (1) “The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative …; (2) “(The information) is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; (3) “The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” CCP § 2019.030(a)(1)-(2).
Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420 states:
“(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:
(1) That the deposition not be taken at all.
(2) That the deposition be taken at a different time.
(3) That a video recording of the deposition testimony of a treating or consulting physician or of any expert witness, intended for possible use at trial under subdivision (d) of Section 2025.620, be postponed until the moving party has had an adequate opportunity to prepare, by discovery deposition of the deponent, or other means, for cross-examination.
(4) That the deposition be taken at a place other than that specified in the deposition notice, if it is within a distance permitted by Sections 2025.250 and 2025.260.
(5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions.
(6) That the deponent's testimony be taken by written, instead of oral, examination.
(7) That the method of discovery be interrogatories to a party instead of an oral deposition.
(8) That the testimony be recorded in a manner different from that specified in the deposition notice.
(9) That certain matters not be inquired into.
(10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters.
(11) That all or certain of the writings or tangible things designated in the deposition notice not be produced, inspected, copied, tested, or sampled, or that conditions be set for the production of electronically stored information designated in the deposition notice.
(12) That designated persons, other than the parties to the action and their officers and counsel, be excluded from attending the deposition.
(13) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.
(14) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.
(15) That the deposition be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.
(16) That examination of the deponent be terminated. If an order terminates the examination, the deposition shall not thereafter be resumed, except on order of the court.”
Defendant moves for a protective order regarding the following: Special Interrogatories (Set Four), 36-52, Special Interrogatories (Set Five), 53-63, and the depositions of Michael Valencia and Sylvia Rivera. The motion is made on the grounds that the subject discovery involves matters wholly unrelated to the subject incident and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant argues that the subject discovery is unwarranted, oppressive, imposes an undue burden, and is solely intended to harass, annoy, embarrass, or oppress Defendant. Specifically, as to the depositions, Defendant states that they will be disruptive to Defendant’s business operations and will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Special Interrogatories, Set Four, Numbers 36-52 seek information on Del Dental Group, which is a fictitious business name held by Dr. Fattahi or her corporation. Plaintiff argues that information as to the holder of the fictious business name may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the contract entered into by Plaintiff, as well as compliance with applicable regulations and Business and Professions Code sections. Special Interrogatories, Set Five, Numbers 53-63 seek information regarding Dr. Fattahi’s attempts to verify Dr. Kim’s license and qualifications before referring Plaintiff to Dr. Kim. Plaintiff argues that the interrogatories may be relevant to issues regarding the direct or vicarious liability of Dr. Fattahi.
However, the Court notes that on May 25, 2022, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference, in which the Court indicated that it would defer ruling on the motion until after the appeal of Dr. Kim has been resolved. Thus, the motion is deemed moot. The motion can be re-filed, if necessary, after the resolution of the appeal of Dr. Kim.
As to the depositions, the Court notes that no notices of depositions were even attached to the motion, and, in fact, Defendant admits that the depositions were merely requested, and not noticed. Thus, a protective order as to potential depositions is premature and merely speculative. The Court does note that the parties participated in an informal discovery conference on June 1, 2022, in which the Court indicated that the depositions of these two employees, if properly noticed, would most likely be permitted. The motion for protective order as to the depositions is denied without prejudice.
Therefore, Defendant’s motion for protective order is moot, in part, and denied without prejudice, in part. The parties’ respective requests for monetary sanctions are denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.