Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV24745, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24745    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motor vehicle accident case. Defendants Piceno’s Roll Off and Piceno Ortizre retained medical expert Luke Macyszyn, M.D. to testify on their behalf at trial and provide opinions regarding Plaintiff’s injuries. During Dr. Macyszyn’s deposition on December 2, 2024, defense counsel instructed him not to respond to the following questions:

1.  Whether he is familiar with UCLA’s reporting requirements for outside med-legal work.

2.  Whether UCLA’s reporting was conducted through a specific tracking system.

3.  Whether he was required to report outside med-legal work to UCLA.

4.  Whether he reported a particular amount of earnings on a public document.

5.  Whether AAA retained him 178 times.

6.  Whether an insurance carrier paid him a certain total amount for 2019.

Plaintiff now moves the Court to compel Dr. Macyszyn to answer these questions. Defendants filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

If a deponent fails to answer any question, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(a). If the Court determines that the answer is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given on the resumption of the deposition. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(i). Likewise, if a deponent fails to answer a deposition question, the examiner may complete the examination on other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order compelling answers to those which no answer was provided. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.460(e); 2025.480.

Discussion

Plaintiff cites Evidence Code section 780 and Evidence Code section 722(b) in support of his motion to compel.

Evidence Code section 780 provides that a court or jury may consider any matter that has any tendency in reason to disprove the truthfulness of a witness. Section 780 specifically identifies the following areas where inquiry is proper: (e) the witness's character for honesty or veracity or their opposites and (f) the existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.

Evidence Code section 722(b) provides that the compensation and expenses paid or to be paid to an expert witness by the party calling him is a proper subject of inquiry by any adverse party as relevant to the credibility of the witness and the weight of his testimony.

Plaintiff argues that questions asked about the deponent’s reporting requirements while he was employed at UCLA, how many times he has been retained by insurance carriers, and the total amount paid are relevant to the credibility and potential bias of the expert.

Defendant argues that the questions go far beyond Dr. Macyszyn’s compensation in the present case and exceed the scope of Evidence Code section 722(b). In Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass’n v. Superior Court (Diehl) (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 691, the court held that while section 722 permits inquiry into an expert’s compensation to explore bias, such inquiries must balance discovery rights with privacy concerns. General estimates, such as the percentage of defense versus plaintiff work or total income derived from med-legal activities over a few years, are permissible. However, specific, detailed information, such as exact income for a particular year or extensive financial records, is overly intrusive and unnecessary.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s question regarding whether an insurance carrier paid the expert a specific amount for 2019 seeks overly specific information and is not permissible.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s questions do not pertain to Defendant’s income amount or financial records. Instead, these questions focus on the deponent’s reporting requirements while employed at UCLA and the number of times AAA has retained the deponent in the past. These inquiries are relevant and proper under Evidence Code section 780 as they relate to the deponent’s honesty, bias, interest, or motive. Specifically, questions about the deponent’s compliance with UCLA’s reporting requirements serve as character evidence for honesty, while the frequency of retention by AAA directly addresses the existence of bias or other motives.

Moreover, these questions do not implicate the deponent’s financial privacy, as they do not request specific income amounts, financial records, or any overly intrusive financial details that were at issue in Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass’n v. Superior Court (Diehl) (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 691.

Defendant’s opposition fails to address these arguments entirely, focusing exclusively on Evidence Code section 722(b) and the alleged impropriety of questions regarding specific financial disclosures. As such, Defendant has not provided any basis for objecting to Plaintiff’s questions under Evidence Code section 780.

Accordingly, the deponent is ordered to answer the following questions within 20 days of this order:

1.  Whether he is familiar with UCLA’s reporting requirements for outside med-legal work.

2.  Whether UCLA’s reporting was conducted through a specific tracking system.

3.  Whether he was required to report outside med-legal work to UCLA.

4.  Whether he reported a particular amount of earnings on a public document.

5.  Whether AAA retained him 178 times.

These questions are proper under Evidence Code section 780 as they seek to explore the deponent’s honesty and potential bias without infringing on his financial privacy.
            Sanctions are denied as the parties have acted with substantial justification.

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’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to 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.