Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV34715, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34715    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff Holly McKay (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Samuel Nicholas Wechsler (“Defendant”) arising from a September 15, 2018, motor vehicle and electric scooter accident.  Trial was previously scheduled for September 6, 2022.  On July 14, 2022, pursuant to Defendant’s ex parte application, the Court continued the trial date to May 16, 2023, but did not continue the discovery or motion cutoff deadlines.  On August 17, 2022, at a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court scheduled trial for February 8, 2023, pursuant to oral stipulation.  On August 19, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting independent medical examinations (“IME”) of Plaintiff and completing expert depositions.  Defendant also requested an order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at two IMEs.  The motion was originally scheduled to be heard on September 14, 2022, but continued to September 29, 2022.  Plaintiff did not make an appearance on September 29, 2022, and the Court granted Defendant’s motion and allowed his expert, Dr. Amos, to examine Plaintiff. 

On October 11, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to reopen all discovery and reinstate the trial date of May 16, 2023.

On November 7, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant’s motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer to formulate a joint discovery plan to include various medical examinations, the production of employment records, insurance claim records, and medical records, the depositions of various treating physicians, and counseling and rehabilitation records.  The proposed discovery plan was intended for the Court to determine whether a trial continuance to May 16, 2023, was necessary. 

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Blake E. Burtchaell filed a declaration detailing his attempts to create the proposed discovery plan as ordered.  Mr. Burtchaell declares that he has been unable to contact defense counsel, who is reportedly ill, despite sending emails and calling counsel’s office on November 14 and November 22, 2022.  (Burtchaell Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.) Mr. Burtchaell requests the Court impose monetary, issue, or evidentiary sanctions in his declaration, but the Court is unwilling to take such action without a noticed motion.  Nevertheless, in light of defense counsel’s unwillingness to prepare a joint discovery plan, the Court sees no need for a trial continuance.  Defendant’s motion to continue trial is DENIED.  Trial remains scheduled for February 8, 2023.  No further continuances should be expected.

As for the scope of discovery, the Court adopts its previously-issued tentative ruling and orders discovery reopened only for the limited purpose of obtaining Plaintiff’s medical records relating to: (1) her treatment for seizures and a prescription for Keppra from June 2021, (2) her therapy sessions since the time of the accident through June 2022, and (3) a 30-day alcohol rehabilitation program that took place in February 2022.  All other discovery, including expert discovery, remains closed. 

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 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.