Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV09235, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV09235 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs.
APPLE
AUTO DISMANTLING INC. DBA MR. FORD AUTO DISMANTLING, et al.,
Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT APPLE AUTO DISMANTLY INC., DBA MR. FORD AUTO
DISMANTLING’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NONPARTY
CLINICA MEDICA CUZCATLAN
Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. April
12, 2023 |
I.
INTRODUCTION
On March 9, 2021, plaintiff Javier Gonzalez
Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Apple Auto
Dismantling, Inc. dba Mr. Ford Auto Dismantling (“Apple Auto”), and Benson’s
Auto Dismantling (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence and premises
liability. Plaintiff alleges he was
lawfully on Defendants’ premises on March 19, 2019 when he attempted to use an
improperly installed and defective ladder and fell. Plaintiff sustained arm and facial/nasal injuries.
On June 14, 2022, Apple Auto served a
Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business (“Subpoena”) on Clinica Medica Cuzcatlan (“Clinica”)
seeking the production of records pertaining to Plaintiff’s care, treatment,
and examination for the past ten years.
Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to the Subpoena on September 15,
2022. Clinica did not produce any
records.
On October 28, 2022, Apple Auto filed
the instant motion to compel nonparty Clinica to comply with deposition
subpoenas for the production of Plaintiff’s medical records.
The Court heard this motion on March 9,
2023. The Court issued an order stating
an inclination to grant the motion with modifications to the subpoena
request. However, because Apple Auto had
not included proof of personal service of the notice of motion and the motion
to Clinica, the Court continued the hearing and ordered Apple Auto to file
proof of service. The Court also stated
that Clinica could file an opposition nine court days prior to this hearing and
that Apple Auto could file a reply.
On April 4, 2023, Apple Auto filed
proof of personal service of the notice of motion and motion on Clinica. According to the filing, personal service was
effected on March 14, 2023.
No opposition by Clinica has been
filed. Although Plaintiff served objections to the subpoenas, Plaintiff
did not file an opposition to the current motion.
II.
LEGAL
PRINCIPLES
A party seeking discovery from a person
who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition,
written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business
records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only
the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of
business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the
deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)
A service of a deposition subpoena
shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the
deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents
and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the
place of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2020.220, subd. (a).) Personal service
of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident
of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies;
to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the
subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2020.220, subd. (c).)
“A written notice and all moving papers
supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel
production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be
personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees
to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic
service address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1346.)
III.
ANALYSIS
The Subpoena requested the following
records from Clinica:
“ALL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CARE, TREATMENT
AND EXAMINATION OF JAVIER GONZALEZ MUNOZ, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY
ITEMIZED STATEMENTS OF THE BILLING CHARGES, INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT CHARTS AND
RECORDS, EMERGENCY ROOM AND LAB REPORTS, RADIOLOGY REPORTS, BREAKDOWN FOR ANY
CAT SCANS, X-RAYS, MRI'S TAKEN, EKG AND EMG REPORTS, PRESCRIPTION/PHARMACY
RECORDS, AND ANY OTHER RECORDS PERTAINING TO JAVIER GONZALEZ MUNOZ, DOB:
February 9, 1964 … FROM 1/1/2012 TO AND INCLUDING THE PRESENT.”
(See Huffman Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)
Plaintiff served objections to the
deposition subpoenas. Specifically,
Plaintiff objected to the Subpoena on the grounds that (1) answering the request
would result in annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, (2) the request is not
limited in time or scope as to Plaintiff’s injured body parts, (3) the request,
was vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, (4) the request seeks irrelevant
information, and (5) the request improperly seeks information related to
collateral sources and other inadmissible and irrelevant information. (Huffman Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) Apple Auto’s counsel attempted to meet and
confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, but did not receive a response. (Huffman Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)
Apple Auto shows there is good cause to
compel the production of the requested documents. Plaintiff claims injuries were sustained
during the incident. Therefore, Apple
Auto is entitled to know the care, treatment, and examination pertaining to Plaintiff’s
injuries. However, the Court agrees with
Plaintiff’s objection that the Subpoena is not limited to Plaintiff’s
injuries. Apple Auto has not shown there is good cause
to obtain all documents and records pertaining to the care, treatment, and
examination of Plaintiff without any limit on scope.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Apple Auto’s
motion is GRANTED. The Court MODIFIES
Apple Auto’s subpoena to Clinica as follows:
The custodian of records for Clinica
Medica Cuzcatlan is ordered to produce all documents and records pertaining to
the care, treatment, and examination of Javier Gonzalez Munoz for orthopedic
and facial/nasal injuries, including, but not limited to, any itemized
statements of the billing charges, inpatient and outpatient charts and records,
emergency room and lab reports, radiology reports, breakdown for any CAT scans,
x-rays, MRI’s taken, EKG and EMG reports, prescription/pharmacy records, and
any other records pertaining to Javier Gonzalez Munoz DOB: February 9, 1964,
that relate to orthopedic or facial/nasal injuries, from 1/1/2012 to and
including the present.
Clinica is Ordered to produced
responsive documents within ten (10) days of service of this Order.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this
tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating
intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided
on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not toA
appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the
hearing and argue the matter. Unless you
receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume
that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the
parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the
tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Dated this 12th day of April
2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court |