This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 02:55:58 (UTC).

AIDA INIGUEZ VS DOMINGO C BARRIENTOS ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/06/2016 AIDA INIGUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against DOMINGO C BARRIENTOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MAURICE A. LEITER and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6038

  • Filing Date:

    04/06/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MAURICE A. LEITER

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

INIGUEZ AIDA

INIGUEZ FRANCISCO

Defendants and Respondents

DOMINGO C. BARRIENTOS M.D. INC.

BARRIENTOS DOMINGO C.

DOES 1 TO 100

MOSTOFI REZA

SEGAL DOUGLAS (DOE 32)

FULMER DOE 43 HUGH P.

SPIWAK JOSE M.D. DOE 33

DABBS DABUEKKE

FRIEDBERG DOE 41 DAVID

FARAH DOE 42 AMIN

DABBS DANIELLE D.O. DOE 36

DABBS DANIELLE

FARAH AMIN

ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER DOE 31

JIMINEZ MICHAEL

JIMENEZ MICHAEL

JIMINEZ DOE 38 MICHAEL

MODYOGIL REZA

28 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DANIELYAN MARIAM

HOPSON KIRT J. ESQ.

LAW OFFICE OF MARIAM DANIELYAN

NEWKIRK WILLIAM HENRY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LAMB MICHAEL V. ESQ.

SCHMID & VOILES LAW OFFICES OF

BRANDMEYER KENT THOMAS

CORSON PAUL MEIER

STOCKALPER PATRICK EDWARD

BLESSEY RAYMOND LESLIE

LAMB MICHAEL VINCENT

LAW + BRANDMEYER LLP

RYAN RICHARD JAMES ESQ.

RYAN RICHARD J. ESQ.

TAYLOR BLESSEY LLP

RYAN RICHARD J.

LAW OFFICES OF SCHMID & VOILES

HILLYER KEVIN PAULEY

DONAHUE CRAIG R.

WEND CHRISTOPHER P

6 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

Unknown

7/21/2016: Unknown

Unknown

8/11/2016: Unknown

Notice of Change of Firm Name

9/8/2016: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Unknown

9/23/2016: Unknown

Case Management Statement

10/19/2016: Case Management Statement

Unknown

10/19/2016: Unknown

Case Management Statement

10/25/2016: Case Management Statement

Unknown

10/25/2016: Unknown

Unknown

12/1/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

3/9/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/12/2018: Notice of Ruling

Motion in Limine

9/7/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

9/7/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

9/7/2018: Motion in Limine

Declaration

9/14/2018: Declaration

Case Management Statement

1/2/2019: Case Management Statement

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

5/4/2016: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

CIVIL DEPOSIT

10/3/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

220 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReBankruptcy) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReBankruptcy) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReBankruptcy) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Minute Order ((Trial Setting Conference; Status Conference; Order to Show Ca...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Aida Iniguez (Plaintiff); Francisco Iniguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by DAVID FRIEDBERG (Doe 41) (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER J. MARROCCO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
419 More Docket Entries
  • 05/04/2016
  • SUMMONS FIRST AMENDED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2016
  • CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2016
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; (2) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Aida Iniguez (Plaintiff); Francisco Iniguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Aida Iniguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2012
  • Motion in Limine

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC616038 Hearing Date: July 6, 2021 Dept: A

\r\n\r\n

I. MOTION TO COMPEL\r\nDEPOSITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL NURSES

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Compel the Depositions of Defendant St. Francis\r\nMedical Center’s Nurses Shermin Gordon, RN and Terrance Jackson RN and for Sanctions\r\nis GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant\r\nSt. Francis Medical Center is ordered to produce Shermin Gordon, RN for\r\ndeposition within the next 30 days at a date and time agreeable to the\r\nparties. The court denies the motion with\r\nrespect to Defendant’s former employee Terrance Jackson, R.N. as Plaintiff must\r\nsubpoena former employees. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

In this medical malpractice action, Plaintiff Aida Iniguez\r\nalleges that Defendants were negligent in her care and treatment, resulting in\r\nthe amputation of both her legs and other injuries.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks to compel the depositions of two nurses\r\ninvolved in Plaintiff’s treatment while allegedly employed by Defendant St.\r\nFrancis Medical Center: Shermin Gordon,\r\nRN and Terrance Jackson RN. In the\r\nmoving papers, Plaintiff asserts that Shermin Gordon, RN was one of the\r\nmanagers assigned to Plaintiff’s floor while she was a patient at St. Francis and\r\nfurther asserts that Gordon is a current St. Francis employee. Plaintiff claims that Terrance Jackson is a\r\nformer St. Francis employee who was a nurse assigned to Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff served notices of the depositions on April 6,\r\n2021. Objections were served on April\r\n14, 2021. On April 29, 2021, St. Francis’s\r\ncounsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Terrance Jackson, RN was no longer an\r\nemployee of St. Francis, but admitted that Shermin Gordon was still an employee. St. Francis nonetheless declined to provide\r\ndates for Gordon’s deposition.

\r\n\r\n

A. DEPOSITION OF CURRENT\r\nST. FRANCIS EMPLOYEE SHERMIN GORDON, R.N.

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, St. Francis does not contest that there is\r\ngood cause for the deposition of Nurse Gordon. \r\nInstead, St. Francis’s counsel states that the entity that owned St.\r\nFrancis went into bankruptcy and that a successor entity acquired it out of\r\nbankruptcy. Counsel further states that because\r\nof the bankruptcy plan, Plaintiff is “litigating against an insurance carrier\r\nwhich has limited access to information and documents.” Counsel implies that the bankruptcy order\r\nsomehow precludes the court from ordering the named defendant in the case from\r\ncomplying with its discovery obligations. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

In making this argument, counsel quotes a snippet of the release\r\nin the bankruptcy plan stating that claims against the bankruptcy debtor are\r\nreleased but does not provide the full language of the release, and most\r\nsignificantly, does not provide the language in the plan that allows this case\r\nto proceed. Based on the present record,\r\nthe court cannot conclude that the effect of the bankruptcy plan is to somehow\r\nlimit discovery against the named defendant in this matter. If counsel believes that the bankruptcy plan\r\nis relevant to this issue, counsel should have provided the relevant portions\r\nto the court in opposing the motion.

\r\n\r\n

The only order from the bankruptcy court that is included in\r\nthe court file is the order granting Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the automatic\r\nstay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 that is dated December 12, 2018. That order states that the stay under 11\r\nU.S.C. §\r\n362, subd. (a) is “[t]erminated as to the Debtor and the Debtor’s bankruptcy\r\nestate.” It further states, under the\r\nheading “Limitations on Enforcement of Judgment” that Plaintiff “may proceed in\r\nthe nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance\r\nwith applicable nonbankruptcy law. \r\n[Plaintiff] is permitted to enforce [her] final judgment only by\r\ncollecting upon any available insurance in accordance with applicable\r\nnonbankruptcy law.” This order makes\r\nclear that the litigation is to proceed against the defendant under general\r\nCalifornia law, and it is only the enforcement of the judgment that is limited\r\nto the insurance company.

\r\n\r\n

St. Francis Medical Center remains a defendant in this\r\ncase. As such, it has an obligation to\r\ncomply with its discovery obligations in accordance with the law. St. Francis has made no motion to dismiss\r\nbased on the fact that a successor entity has acquired it and has not otherwise\r\nsought to substitute in some other party, such as the insurance carrier. It remains the named defendant. (The court\r\ndoes not mean to suggest that any such motion should be brought or would be\r\nsuccessful.)

\r\n\r\n

“The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240\r\nis effective to require any deponent who is . . . [an] employee of a party to\r\nattend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically\r\nstored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280). Plaintiff has established that a deposition\r\nnotice for Nurse Gordon’s deposition was properly served and Defendant admits\r\nthat Gordon is still employed by St. Francis. \r\nThus, the court grants the motion to compel the deposition Nurse Gordon.\r\nNurse Gordon must further produce documents responsive to the requests that are\r\nwithin his or her possession, custody or control.

\r\n\r\n

B. DEPOSITION OF\r\nFORMER EMPLOYEE TERRANCE JACKSON, R.N.

\r\n\r\n

A deposition notice is not sufficient to require the\r\nattendance at a deposition of a former employee. Rather, to secure the attendance and\r\ntestimony of a former employee, a party must serve the deponent with a\r\ndeposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc. §\r\n2025.280, subd. (b).) Counsel represents\r\nthat Nurse Jackson is no longer employed by St. Francis, and the court accepts\r\nthat representation.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues that St. Francis should be ordered to\r\nprovide Nurse Jackson’s most recent contact information, but there is no\r\ndiscovery request (such as an interrogatory) at issue in this motion that would\r\nsupport such an order. The court encourages\r\nSt. Francis to provide that information without requiring Plaintiff to make a formal\r\ndiscovery request for it, but the court cannot order St. Francis to provide it\r\nin the absence of a formal discovery request. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

Nor can the court order defense counsel to accept service of\r\na subpoena upon Jackson.

\r\n\r\n

C. REQUEST FOR\r\nSANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

The request for sanctions is denied as the request is not\r\nproperly noticed under section 2023.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which\r\nrequires the request to be made in the notice of motion and to identify the\r\nperson, party and/or the attorney against whom the sanction is sought. The notice does not comply with that statute.

\r\n\r\n

II. MOTION TO COMPEL\r\nDEPOSITION OF ST. FRANCIS’S PMK

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Depositions of Defendant\r\nSt. Francis Medical Center’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and for Sanctions is\r\nGRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff served a PMK notice on April 6, 2021, seeking the\r\ndeposition of the PMK regarding ARCIS, the medical records software that St. Francis\r\nHospital used when Plaintiff was a patient. \r\nThe notice also sought the production of various records. On April 14, 2021, Defendant served\r\nobjections.

\r\n\r\n

On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff served a subsequent PMK notice with\r\nadditional topics. Defense counsel\r\ninformed Plaintiff’s counsel several times that PMKs had not been and could not\r\nbe identified.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to produce PMKs on\r\nthe referenced topics and to produce documents responsive to the requests.

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff had\r\npreviously sought PMK deposition on the topics in the latest notice and\r\nDefendant had objected to the topics. \r\nDefendant claims that Plaintiff waived the right to compel the\r\ndeposition because Plaintiff could have moved earlier. This argument fails; there is no deadline for\r\na motion to compel when the deposition does not go forward. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §\r\n2025.450 [no deadline listed for motions to compel when deponent fails to\r\nappear]; §\r\n2025.480 [motion to compel further responses has a deadline of 60 days after completion\r\nof the record of the deposition].) The court\r\ndoes not find waiver or laches to be applicable in this situation.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant also argues that there is no person qualified to testify\r\nas to topics 1-12 because of the change in ownership of the company. Pursuant to section 2025.230, Defendant is\r\nunder “a duty to designate and produce the officers, directors, managing agents\r\nor employees ‘most qualified’ to testify on its behalf. The person or persons designated by the\r\nentity must testify ‘to the extent of any information known or reasonably\r\navailable to the” entity. Thus, the\r\nperson designated must gather information known to the entity and be prepared\r\nto testify on it.

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Defendant must designate the person or persons most\r\nknowledgeable on the subjects, even if the person has only limited\r\nknowledge. Plaintiff is entitled to\r\ninquire into the extent of knowledge. It\r\nis not sufficient to simply say there is no one at the company that has any\r\nknowledge. Further, there has been no\r\ncompetent evidence presented to the court that no one currently employed at St.\r\nFrancis Medical Center has any information regarding any of the designated\r\ntopics and further that there is no ability to educate a deponent through an\r\nexamination of the company’s books and records. \r\nFinally, if Defendant truly has no information at all about any of the topics\r\nand cannot obtain such information through reasonable inquiry (including\r\nthrough review of Defendant’s records), then Plaintiff is entitled to depose a\r\nwitness under oath who will testify to that fact. Plaintiff is also permitted\r\nto inquire as to the efforts to collect relevant documents and, to the extent there\r\nare no responsive documents, to obtain the Defendant entity’s testimony under\r\noath, through the PMK, that there are no responsive documents.

\r\n\r\n

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, however, Defendant is not required\r\nto produce any of its former officers, directors, managing agents or employees\r\neven if they are far more knowledgeable about the matters specified in the\r\ndeposition notice than its current staff. (Maldonado v. Sup.Ct. (ICG Telecom\r\nGroup, Inc.) (2002) 94 Cal. App. 4th 1390, 1398).

\r\n\r\n

The court sees little relevance to topics 13-17 in the fifth\r\namended notice, and Plaintiff does not explain the need for testimony on those\r\ntopics. The motion is denied as to those\r\ntopics. The court finds that topic 18 is\r\noverbroad, and the court thus denies the motion to compel with respect to that\r\ntopic.

\r\n\r\n

The motion to compel is thus granted as to topics 1-12 and\r\n19-20. Defendant is ordered to produce\r\nits PMK[s] for deposition within the next 30 days.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant is ordered to produce documents responsive to the\r\nrequests to the extent that any such responsive documents exist that have not already\r\nbeen produced in the matter. The PMK\r\nshould be prepared to testify as to the search that was completed for\r\nresponsive documents and should be prepared to testify under oath whether there\r\nare documents responsive to the requests that have not been produced.

\r\n\r\n

The request for sanctions is DENIED as it was not properly\r\nnoticed.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer RYAN RICHARD J

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAMB MICHAEL V.