Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV07026, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07026    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Modify Discovery Referee’s Order

Moving Party: Plaintiff Certified Healthcare Billing Services, Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On February 22, 2021, Cross-Complainants Complete Care Family Medical Clinic, Healing Hand Family Care Clinics Corp., and Homayoun Siman, APC dba Stat Urgent and Primary Care filed a first amended cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Certified Healthcare Billing Services, Inc., Gevork Oganyan aka George Oganyan, and Office Ally, Inc., asserting 16 causes of action for, among other claims, breach of contract, bad faith, conversion, fraud, and unfair business practices. On August 20, 2021, the Court sustained in part and overruled in part Cross-Defendants’ demurrers to the FACC. On September 20, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed the operative second-amended cross-complaint asserting 13 causes of action.

Cross-Complainants allege that they hired Cross-Defendants to provide medical billing services, which Cross-Defendants’ improperly performed.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 873.070 provides, “The referee or any party may, on noticed motion, petition the court for instructions concerning the referee’s duties under this title.”

Plaintiff moves to modify the discovery referee’s February 2022 discovery order, which the Court adopted on February 25, 2022. The order limits the time frame for discovery of Defendants’ financial information from 2017 to 2019. The order notes that Plaintiff may seek to expand this order on a proper showing of need and relevance.

Plaintiff seeks to expand the timeframe to include 2014 through 2019. Plaintiff asserts that it discovered many undisclosed bank deposits from 2017-2019 and asks the Court to allow discovery beginning mid-2014, when the business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant began. The Court finds good cause for this discovery.

Defendant’s opposition does not undercut Plaintiff’s showing. As noted, the Court adopted the referee’s order on February 25, 2022. This motion is properly before the Court, and it is not a motion for reconsideration. Defendant’s substantive arguments do not provide a basis to preclude this discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.