Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV25342, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV25342    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Luis Manuel Zarate (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Joseph William Davison and Jennifer L. Davison Davison (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff purportedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision involving Defendants.  Heights Surgical Institute and Dr. Ali Najafi at Neurosurgical Associates Medical Group both provided medical services in connection with Plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the accident at issue. 

            On November 28, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel further depositions of, and production of documents from, Deponents Heights Surgical Institute and Dr. Ali Najafi’s billing Persons Most Knowledgeable (collectively, Deponents).  Here, Defendants move the Court to compel Deponents to comply with the Court’s November 28, 2022, order compelling said Deponents to appear for further deposition and produce further documents.  The motions are unopposed.

            Preliminarily, the Court finds that Defendants’ notices of motion are defective as they are unclear as to what relief Defendants are seeking pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 2025.480.  Defendants’ notice of motion regarding the deposition and production of documents from Deponent Heights Surgical Institute’s billing person most knowledgeable, states in relevant part, the following:  

·         [Defendants] will move the Court to compel the person most knowledgeable of billing and procedures for Heights Surgical Institute (“Billing PMK”) to comply with the Court’s November 28, 2022, order compelling the Billing PMK to appear for a further deposition and produce further documents in response to Defendants’ requests for production nos. 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23, within 15 days.

·         This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1987.1 and 2025.480 and based on the grounds that the Billing PMK failed to comply with the Court’s Order.

·         The Court should order the facility to comply with its prior order . . . .

(Defendants’ Motion Re Heights Surgical Institute, p. 2:4-8, 9-10, 15-16.)

            Defendants’ notice of motion regarding the deposition and production of documents from Deponent Dr. Ali Najafi at Neurosurgical Associates Medical Group’s billing person most knowledgeable, states in relevant part the following:

·         [Defendants] will move the Court to compel the person most knowledgeable of billing and procedures for Dr. Ali Najafi of Neurosurgical Associates Medical Group (“Billing PMK”) to comply with the Court’s November 28, 2022, order compelling the Billing PMK to appear for a further deposition and produce further documents in response to Defendants’ requests for production nos. 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23, within 15 days.

·         This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1987.1 and 2025.480 and based on the grounds that the Billing PMK failed to comply with the Court’s Order.

·         The Court should order the facility to comply with its prior order . . . .

(Defendants’ Motion Re Dr. Ali Najafi, p. 2:4-9, 10-11, 16-17.)  Defendants’ notices of motion seem to request that the Court compel Deponents’ compliance with orders.  (See November 28, 2022 Minute Order.)  Further, it is unclear how either Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 or 2025.480 provide authority for the purported relief Defendants describe in their notices of motion. 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 authorizes the Court to compel a deponent’s compliance to a deposition subpoena.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (k), authorizes the Court to hold a deponent in contempt if they fail to obey a Court order compelling their answer or production as specified in a deposition subpoena.  However, Defendants’ notice of motion does not request either of these methods of relief.  Further, the bodies of Defendants’ motions do not provide further clarification as to the type of relief Defendants seek, and how the described relief is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 2025.480.

            Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants’ motion to be procedurally defective and denies Defendants’ motion without prejudice. 

            Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of the same.