This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2021 at 01:27:04 (UTC).

NICOLE JACKSON VS JORGE HERNANDEZ

Case Summary

On 03/16/2020 NICOLE JACKSON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JORGE HERNANDEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2507

  • Filing Date:

    03/16/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JACKSON NICOLE

Defendant

HERNANDEZ JORGE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

BILBREW LARRY PRESTON

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

3/2/2021: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records)

5/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records) of 05/20/2021

5/20/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records) of 05/20/2021

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to PLT's MTN to Quash

9/8/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to PLT's MTN to Quash

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

1/7/2021: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

2/1/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/24/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

7/24/2020: Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLF's MTN to Quash

7/27/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLF's MTN to Quash

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/30/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/30/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

8/10/2020: Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

8/10/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

4/20/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer - Answer

4/15/2020: Answer - Answer

Complaint - Complaint

3/16/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

3/16/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/16/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/20/2023
  • Hearing03/20/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • Hearing09/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Hearing08/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • Hearing06/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records) of 05/20/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Production of Business Records scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 05/20/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court): Status Date changed from 01/12/2021 to 03/02/2021; Status changed from TP to Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court): Filed By: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/10/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Jorge Hernandez (Defendant); As to: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court); Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court): Filed By: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff); Result: Entered; Result Date: 03/16/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02507    Hearing Date: May 20, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson, in pro per

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Jorge Hernandez

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

(CCP § 1987.1)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED. In addition, Defendant Jorge Hernandez’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $454.25 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 8, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson, in pro per (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causes of action against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”). The action arises out of a car accident that allegedly occurred on March 16, 2018. (Compl., pp. 4-5.) Defendant filed an Answer on April 15, 2020.

Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoena on July 24, 2020, which is scheduled to be heard on June 10, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition to this first motion on July 27, 2020.

On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second, and the instant, Motion to Quash Subpoena (the “Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition on September 8, 2020. No reply brief was filed.

II. Legal Standard

A subpoena for the production of personal consumer records may be issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3. Personal consumer records means “the original, any copy of books, documents, other writings, or electronically stored information pertaining to a consumer and which are maintained by any ‘witness’ which is a[n]….insurance company.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (a).) “Consumer” means any individual that has transacted business with, or has used the services of, the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (b).) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena and who is a party to the action may file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Assn. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83.) Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (b).) A deposition subpoena may be quashed for: (1) defects in form or content of the subpoena (e.g., inadequate description of requested records); (2) defects in service of the subpoena (e.g., failure to satisfy the requirements of providing notice to consumer); (3) requesting production of records not within the permissible scope of discovery; and (4) being unjustly burdensome or oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

III. Discussion

A. Quash Subpoena

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion is incomplete. It does not include a copy of the subpoena she seeks to quash or set forth the relevant dates. However, because Defendant included a copy in his opposition, the Court proceeds to consider Plaintiff’s Motion.

On June 25, 2020, Defendant served on Plaintiff a Notice of Consumer with a copy of the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”). (Oppo., Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. A.) The Subpoena was directed at Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), had a production date of July 22, 2020, and sought the following:

“Complete claim file from 3/16/2008 to the present, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically; any correspondence, memoranda, notes, claims submitted for insurance benefits, claims submitted for medical worker’s compensation, or group insurance, medical records submitted by the company or other physicians, complete property damage information, including estimates and evaluations, all statements of witnesses and involved motorists. Any and all photographs or duplicate laser copies thereof (photocopies are not acceptable) in your possession, custody, or control (either by you or taken by you). To include any and all records from 03/16/2008 to present from aka Travelers Indemnity Company; and PO Box 15439, Sacramento, CA 95851. (Id.)

Plaintiff first argues that because she has not served a copy of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant, the Court lacks jurisdiction over him. (Mot., p. 2:3-5.) However, Defendant filed an Answer, which constitutes a general appearance, and a general appearance is equivalent to personal service of the summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant did not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1985, subdivision (b). Section 1985, subdivision (b) states that a copy of an affidavit showing good cause for the matters and things described in the subpoena and stating that the witness has said matters and things in his possession or control must be included with a subpoena. However, when a deposition subpoena seeks only the production of documents, it need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff quotes Section 1985.3 at length and concludes that Defendant did not even attempt to satisfy the notice requirements of that section, but never explains why the notice requirements were not met. (Mot., pp. 5-6.) Section 1985.3 requires that a consumer be served with a copy of the subpoena “[n]ot less than 10 days prior to the date for production specified in the subpoena, plus the additional time provided by Section 1013 if service is by mail,” and at least five days before the custodian of records is served, plus additional time provided for in section 1013 if applicable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (b)(1)-(3).) Defendant provides evidence demonstrating that he served a copy of the Subpoena on Plaintiff on June 25, 2020 via regular mail, that the date of production on the Subpoena was July 22, 2020, and that Travelers was served with the Subpoena on July 6, 2020. (Oppo., Bilbrew Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Exh. A.) Thus, the notice requirements of Section 1985.3 were met.

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant “has made this request unlawfully, while being fully aware that he has no legal standing to make such request. As such, [D]efendant is attempting to unlawfully violate [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights to privacy.” (Id., p. 4.) She argues that the information sought should not be disclosed because it contains confidential and sensitive information. (Id.) In opposition, Defendant explains that medical records Plaintiff authorized to be released to Defendant’s insurance carrier demonstrate Plaintiff received medical treatment for an accident that occurred on January 11, 2017, approximately ten months before this accident. (Oppo., p. 6, pp. 11-12, Bilbrew Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 10-14, Exh. D.) Defendant’s counsel further states that, upon information and belief, Plaintiff has a documented history of making personal injury claims, and that she is believed to have been injured in accidents on or around November 26, 2009, January 11, 2017, and December 8, 2017. (Id.) Travelers was the insurance company that covered the claims arising from the January 11, 2017 accident. (Id.) In addition, the records Plaintiff voluntarily released state that Plaintiff had “multiple car accidents, most recent two years ago.” (Id.) Thus, Defendant argues, the information sought by the Subpoena will contain evidence demonstrating whether Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendant for injuries previously reported and for which she was already compensated and whether her injuries can properly be attributed to the subject accident. (Id.) Indeed, evidence of prior claims pertaining to the same injury is relevant to show preexisting conditions and to prevent double recovery by a plaintiff. (Brown v. Alfonso (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 235, 239.) Plaintiff did not file a reply brief demonstrating otherwise.

Lastly, Plaintiff’s argument that the Subpoena should be quashed because it is overly burdensome (Mot., p. 4:5-9) is unpersuasive as she is not the one required to produce the requested documents.

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

B. Sanctions

The Court has discretion to award reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making or opposing a motion under Section 1987.1 if the Court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion was brought without substantial justification. The Court also notes that Plaintiff inexplicably filed two motions, several weeks apart, scheduled for hearing on two different dates, to quash the same subpoena and which appear to be largely identical, forcing Defendant to unnecessarily incur double fees and expenses.

Defendant seeks sanctions of $885.50. Defendant’s counsel states this amount is based on four hours of attorney time spent reviewing Plaintiff’s first motion to quash and drafting the opposition and supporting declaration, and three hours spent on the instant Motion billed at $143.75 per hour plus one remote appearance fee of $23.00. (Oppo., Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 16.) The Court finds $454.25, based on three hours of attorney time and one remote appearance fee, to be reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED. In addition, Defendant Jorge Hernandez’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $454.25 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02507    Hearing Date: February 01, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., February 1, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Jackson v. Hernandez COMPL. FILED: 03-16-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02507 DISC. C/O: 08-14-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-29-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-13-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTEROGATORRIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jorge Hernandez

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jorge Hernandez’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $422.50, to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on April 15, 2020.

On July 30, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on April 20, 2020. (Motions, Bilbrew Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Although not statutorily required, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff letters regarding the lack of responses on June 2, 2020 and June 17, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, Exhs. B, C.) No responses were received as of the date of these Motions. (Id. at ¶¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel seeks a total of $1,170.50, based on six hours of attorney time billed at $143.75 per hour, two filing fees of $60.00, and two CourtCall fees of $94.00. (Motions, Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds two hours of attorney time to be reasonable. Further, the Court no longer utilizes CourtCall for hearings. Instead, the Court uses LACourtConnect, which charges $15.00 for remote audio appearances. Thus, one $15.00 remote appearance fee is reasonable. In sum, the Court awards sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $422.50 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jorge Hernandez’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $422.50, to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BILBREW LARRY