On 11/01/2016 ANITA PATEL MD filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DAVID FELDMAR MD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
PATEL ANITA M.D.
DOES 1 THROUGH 20
ART & SCIENCE PLASTIC SURGERY
FELDMAR DAVID M.D.
FELDPAT MEDICAL CORPORATION
FELDPAT MEDICAL CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DBA ART & SCIENCE PLASTIC SURGERY
ECOFF LAWRENCE C. ESQ.
KAY KEVIN TRENT
BARDAVID MOISES SAUL
1/7/2020: Order - RULING-MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION
10/11/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion
9/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
1/5/2018: DEFENDANTS, DAVID FELDMAR, M.D., AND FELDPAT MEDICAL CORPORATION DBA ART & SCIENCE PLASTIC SURGERY, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR ETC
1/10/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA OF THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF FOOT & ANKLE DOCTORS OF BEVERLY HILLS, INC., AND; ETC.
5/7/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE UPON ANITA PATEL, M.D.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF MOSES S. BARDAVID IN SUPPORT THEREOF
5/10/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
5/15/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE UPON ANITA PATEL, M.D.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF MOSES S. BARDAVID IN SUPPORT THER
5/23/2018: STIPULATLON AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL
6/8/2018: Minute Order -
6/12/2018: Minute Order -
1/7/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order Protective Order - Confidential Designation Only
3/22/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION (TO CONTINUE TRIAL)
4/4/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
11/1/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETC
4/28/2017: Minute Order -
10/3/2017: OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11/29/2017: TENTATIVE RULING
Hearing12/14/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Testimony at Deposition, and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketRuling-Motion to Compel Testimony at Deposition; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (in Support of Motion to Compel Testimony at Deposition); Filed by Anita, M.D. Patel (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketResponse (To Motion to Compel); Filed by David, M.D. Feldmar (Defendant); Feldpat Medical Corporation, a California Professional Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Anita, M.D. Patel (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Anita, M.D. Patel (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 00:00 AM in Department 47; Unknown Event TypeRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Anita, M.D. Patel (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC639437 Hearing Date: January 07, 2020 Dept: 47
Anita Patel, M.D. v. David Feldmar, M.D., et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR $3,260 IN MONETARY SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Anita Patel, M.D.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Feldmar, M.D.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff alleges that she entered into an oral partnership with Defendant to operate a plastic surgery center. After the practice had operated for nearly a year, Defendant breached the partnership agreement by denying that Plaintiff ever had any interest in the practice.
Defendants David Feldmar, M.D. and Feldpat Medical Corporation, dba Art & Science Plastic Surgery filed a cross-complaint alleging that Plaintiff took money from Defendants’ bank account without authorization and failed to contribute income to pay overhead expenses as agreed.
Plaintiff moves to compel testimony of Defendant David Feldmar, M.D. at deposition and for $3,260 in monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Anita Patel, M.D.’s motion to compel testimony at deposition is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,660 (4 total hours at $400/hour plus $60 filing fee), which the Court finds to be the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this successful motion. Sanctions are imposed upon Defendant’s attorneys of record only. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.
Defendant’s cross-request for sanctions is DENIED.
Motion To Compel (Further) Deposition Testimony
Meet and Confer Requirement
The Declaration of Attorney Kevin T. Kay (though it lacks a caption) reflects that the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 2025.480(b) was satisfied.
Defendant’s opposition is unsigned.
Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(CCP § 128.7(a) (bold emphasis added).) To avoid having the opposition stricken, Defendant will need to correct this omission at or before the hearing.
A motion to compel under CCP § 2025.480 must be filed within 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. (CCP § 2025.480(b).) Here, the deposition at issue occurred on August 16, 2019, and this motion was filed on October 11, 2019. Thus, the motion is timely.
Assuming that Defendant will remedy the missing signature on his opposition and it will be considered, Defendant argues that this motion is untimely because this Court noted in its trial setting order that all discovery was closed except for expert depositions, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. (Declaration of Moses S. Bardavid, Exh. C.) This order does not state, however, that the parties were foreclosed from filing discovery motions regarding discovery propounded or completed prior to the date of that order, September 9, 2019. Here, the deposition occurred before that date, and this motion was filed in a timely manner under CCP § 2025.480, as discussed above.
In addition, as Plaintiff notes, the Court has discretion to hear the motion even if the discovery motion cutoff has passed. (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351.) “Depositions play an important role in litigation and trial preparation,” and party depositions are particularly important. Thus, if necessary to do so, the Court would exercise its discretion to hear this motion, especially given that the continued trial date is nearly a year away.
Plaintiff Anita Patel, M.D., moves to compel the (further) testimony of Defendant David Feldmar, M.D. On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff took Defendant’s deposition, and he refused to answer questions about the revenues of Defendant Feldpat Medical Corporation for the time after Plaintiff was ejected from the partnership. (Motion, at p. 2.)
If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking that answer or production may adjourn the deposition or complete the examination on other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order compelling that answer or production under Section 2025.480.
(CCP § 2025.460(e).)
(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.
(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.
. . .
(i) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.
(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(CCP § 2025.480.)
The Court will address the deposition questions set forth in Plaintiff’s separate statement.
¿ Deposition Question No. 1: GRANT.
Here, Plaintiff seeks information regarding the income generated by the parties’ partnership for 2016, after she was removed from it and after Defendant changed its name to Feldmar Aesthetics. Defendant objected this this question on the ground that it called for personal financial information.
Financial information is protected by an individual’s right of privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1003, overruled in part by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 and n. 8.) However, that protection is not absolute and must be balanced against the countervailing public interest in disclosure, such as the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings, obtaining just results in litigation, and facilitating the enforcement of judgments. (Hooser, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 1004.) “[I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective.” (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1855, overruled in part by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 and n. 8.)
Here, Plaintiff has established that this information is relevant to her claims. In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks a “fifty percent (50%) ownership interest in FELDPAT, along with all of the attendant rights, privileges, and distributions.” (Complaint ¶ 55.) The income generated by the business after she was expelled is therefore relevant to her claims. Moreover, the parties have entered into a protective order that will safeguard Defendant’s privacy to the extent it is implicated by this question.
Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to Deposition Question No. 1.
¿ Deposition Question No. 2: GRANT.
Similar to Deposition Question No. 1, this question asks about income generated by Feldpat Corporation in 2016 and 2017.
For the reasons discussed in connection with Deposition Question No. 1, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to Deposition Question No. 2.
¿ Deposition Question No. 3: GRANT.
Similar to the previous questions, this question asks about the financials of Feldmar Aesthetics between 2016 and 2018.
For the reasons discussed in connection with deposition Question No. 1, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to Deposition Question No. 3.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,660 (4 total hours at $400/hour plus $60 filing fee), which the Court finds to be the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this successful motion. (Kay Decl. ¶ 7.) Sanctions are imposed upon Defendant’s attorneys of record only. Defendant could hardly ignore his counsel’s objection and answer Plaintiff’s questions, and therefore seeking sanctions against Defendant himself is inappropriate. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.
Defendant’s counter-request for sanctions is DENIED, given that bringing this motion was not an abuse of the discovery process.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2020 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org
 Plaintiff does not indicate any later date on which the record of deposition was completed, but the motion is timely using the date of the deposition as a starting point, in any case.
 Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1018, 1029 (citation omitted).)
To the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the other considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, they are disapproved.
(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)