Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV09073, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09073    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 7, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party: Plaintiff Siamak Pishvaee, individually and as successor-in-interest to Jamal Pishvaei

Responding Party: Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Smidt Heart Institute, Florian Rader, M.D., Nathan Reuven Stein, Jae Hyung Cho, M.D., Joshua Goldhaber, M.D., Caitlin Leigh Oldenkamp, M.D., Gene St. Pierre, Andrew Kondrat, Afshin Afrashteh, Danielle Kahanowitch, And Achilles Vincent Aiken; and Defendant Neha Jeurkar Darrah, M.D.

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED.

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 October 2, 2023, Plaintiff Siamak Pishvaee, individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent Jamal Pishvaei, filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; (2) violation of the Bane Act; (3) violation of the Ralph Act; (4) violation of the Unruh Act; (5) defamation; (6) assault; (7) battery; (8) violation of Health & Safety Code § 123100; (9) fraud; (10) negligence; (11) negligent hiring; (12) negligent supervision; (13) IIED; (14) UCL violations; (15) injunctive relief; and (16) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges Defendants neglected decedent’s health, wrongfully restrained decedent, withheld food and water for several days and withheld medical care. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ wrongful conduct caused decedent’s death.

ANALYSIS

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP § 2031.060(b).)

Plaintiff moves for a protective order implementing restrictions to the deposition of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s brother, third-party witness Babak Pishvaee. Plaintiff asserts that the deposition notices improperly seek identical documents, including those related to Defendants’ medical malpractice defense. Plaintiff asserts that documents relating to medical malpractice are irrelevant because the Court ruled that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged claims for elder abuse in response to Defendants’ demurrer.

Plaintiff also requests a discovery referee and the following orders,

(1) 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. Specifically, that it be taken remotely.

(2) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions. Specifically, that testimony elicited be limited only to the facts and events that occurred between April 24, 2021-April 30, 2021 at Defendant CEDARS-SINAI medical center.

(3) That the deponent Babak Pishvaee’s testimony be taken by written, instead of oral, examination.

(4) That the method of discovery be interrogatories to a party instead of an oral deposition.

(5) That certain matters not be inquired into including any matters occurring before Plaintiff Jamal Pishvaei’s Admission into Defendant CEDARS-SINAI medical center on April 24, 2021.

(6) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters. Specifically, that testimony elicited be limited only to the facts and events that occurred between April 24, 2021-April 30, 2021 at Defendant CEDARS-SINAI medical center.

(7) That all or certain of the writings or tangible things designated in the deposition notice not be produced. Specifically, that only writing or tangible thing created between April 24, 2021-April 30, 2021 at Defendant CEDARS-SINAI medical center be produced.

In opposition, Defendants dispute the need for a protective order and represent that Plaintiff did not meet and confer before filing this motion.

The Court declines to enter a protective order. Defendants may seek information relating to their defenses and the parties could have resolved the issues in this motion with meet and confer. The Court sees no reason to limit the content of discovery as requested. The discovery is not so voluminous or contentious so as to warrant a discovery referee.

The motion for protective order is DENIED.