On 05/08/2013 ANA NESFRITS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY KEOSIAN and DAVID SOTELO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION
CASA COLINA CNETERS FOR REHABILITATION -
DOES 1 TO 100
- CASA COLINA CNETERS FOR REHABILITATION
GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.
DISCOE TONY A. ESQ.
BASSETT DISCOE MCMAINS & KARGOZAR
5/14/2013: ORDER ON COURT FEEWAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT
10/22/2014: Minute Order -
10/27/2015: Minute Order -
11/18/2015: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
5/2/2016: Opposition - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal
5/13/2016: RULING RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE DISMISSAL OF CASE
7/25/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME
10/3/2016: DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION ANT) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF, ANA NESFRITS; AND FOR SANCT
10/3/2016: DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PKOPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF, ANA NESFRITS
10/4/2016: DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROCATORIES, SET ONE PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF, ANA NESFRITS; AND FOR SAN
10/18/2016: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)
10/24/2016: Opposition - Opposition Omnibus Opposition to Defendant's Motions to Compel
3/8/2017: CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION?S ORDER RE DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE SECOND SESSION OF PLAINTIFF ANA NESFRITS
3/8/2017: DEFENDANT, CASA COLINA CENTERS FOR REHABILITATION'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; ETC.
5/26/2017: RULING RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SECOND CONTINUANCE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF TREATER, LISA GAIL PATRICK, M.D. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
6/13/2017: PLAINTIFF ANA NESFRITS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CASA COLINA CENTERS, INC.'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THE NON-RETAINED EXPERTS
7/14/2017: Notice of Settlement - Summons on Cross-Complaint
7/20/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 91; (OSC-Failure to File Request for Dism; Order of Dismissal) -Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 91; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 91; Final Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of SettlementRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Ana Nesfrits (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-PI Settlement Conf & Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF PI SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROGRAM & ORDERRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 75; Unknown Event TypeRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver After Hearing (Superior Court); Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER ON COURT FEEWAIVER (SUPERIOR COURTRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Ana Nesfrits (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Ana Nesfrits (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC508335 Hearing Date: April 20, 2021 Dept: 28
Motion to Quash Deposition
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
This matter arises from a trip and fall incident.
On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff Victoria Valdez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability against Defendants Martha E. Rivas and Mary A. Rivas.
Trial is set for July 12, 2021.
Plaintiff moves the Court to quash the deposition subpoena of Philip Girard, Jr., M.D. (“Dr. Girard”) or in the alternative dates to have Dr. Girard’s deposition taken.
Defendant Martha Rivas (“Defendant”) represents that Plaintiff’s Motion is now moot because the parties have agreed to a date for Dr. Girard’s deposition.
Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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 Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)
Defendant represents that the parties have agreed to a date for Dr. Girard’s deposition. As such there will only be an analysis on whether sanctions should be imposed.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides that “the court may in its discretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing [a motion to quash], including reasonable attorney’s fees, 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(a).)
On February 9, 2021, Defendant issued a subpoena to take the deposition of Dr. Girard for March 17, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Pashai Decl., ¶ 2.) On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel was informed that trial in another matter was set to begin on March 16, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to find another attorney to cover the deposition but was unable to. Id.) At 1:32 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel of the schedule conflict and requested that Dr. Girard’s deposition be rescheduled. Walls Decl., ¶ 8.) , Defendant’s Counsel spoke with Dr. Girard’s office and was informed that a $1,200 cancellation fee would be incurred as of 2:00 p.m. that day. (Walls Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that it would not take the deposition off calendar until it received Dr. Girard’s $1,200 cancellation fee and alternative dates for his deposition because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s history of failure to provide dates to take Dr. Girard’s deposition. Pashai Decl., ¶ 5-6; Walls Decl., ¶ 4-8.)
Here, then facts show that Plaintiff’s counsel has a history of unresponsiveness when asked for dates that worked for Dr. Girard’s deposition. ’s counsel was given sufficient time, and had the opportunity, to cancel Dr. Girard’s deposition and take it off-calendar prior to incurring any fees. While the Court understands that Defendant’s counsel may have been frustrated because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s prior unresponsiveness, it does not justify incurring unnecessary fees. As such, each party is to bear their own costs for filing and opposing this Motion.
Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff and Defendant’s Motions for sanctions are also DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff and Defendant’s Motions for sanctions are also DENIED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Plaintiff is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases