This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/31/2016 at 21:44:40 (UTC).

CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE VS DAN MINTZ

Case Summary

On 05/08/2014 CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DAN MINTZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5169

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

MINTZ DAN

WU BING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

TRIAL LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY I. KRAMER

MARSHAL SILBERBEREG

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

STEPHAN GEORGE JAMES ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/4/2015: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY A. CARASSO AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/4/2015: DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY A. CARASSO AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF MARSHALL SILBERBERG

11/17/2015: DECLARATION OF MARSHALL SILBERBERG

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

12/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC.

5/6/2016: PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DMG ENTERTA1NTMENT, LLC AND H2F ENTERTAINMENT, INC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

6/24/2016: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DMG ENTERTA1NTMENT, LLC AND H2F ENTERTAINMENT, INC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Minute Order

7/15/2016: Minute Order

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS DMG ENTERTAINMENT, LLC AND H2F ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/18/2016: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS DMG ENTERTAINMENT, LLC AND H2F ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

7/25/2016: TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT H2F ENTERTAINMENT, LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRE

7/28/2016: PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT H2F ENTERTAINMENT, LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRE

Minute Order

9/12/2016: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE PROPOSED ORDER

1/12/2017: PLAINTIFF CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE'S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE PROPOSED ORDER

NOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE

3/10/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE

DECLARATION OF GEORGE J. STEPHAN REGARDING MOTION ADVANCED TO APRIL 4, 2017 RE DETERMINATION RE GENERAL APPEARANCE

3/21/2017: DECLARATION OF GEORGE J. STEPHAN REGARDING MOTION ADVANCED TO APRIL 4, 2017 RE DETERMINATION RE GENERAL APPEARANCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/15/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

6/27/2017: Minute Order

MINTZ AND WU'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

9/26/2017: MINTZ AND WU'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

PLAINTIFF?S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS? SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; REQUEST FOR OSC RE: SANCTIONS AGAINST BUCHALTER AND GEORGE STEPHAN; REQUEST TO STRIKE BRIEF OF MINT

11/9/2017: PLAINTIFF?S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS? SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; REQUEST FOR OSC RE: SANCTIONS AGAINST BUCHALTER AND GEORGE STEPHAN; REQUEST TO STRIKE BRIEF OF MINT

178 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/21/2015
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2015
  • Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (RELIEVED AS COUNSEL MARSHALL SILBERBERG ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2015
  • Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2015
  • Declaration Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2015
  • Order (ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON DAN MINTZ AND BING WU ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2015
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2015
  • Notice (OF NON OPPOSITION TO MTN TO QUASH, ETC. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 11/26/2014
  • Motion to Quash Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2014
  • Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2014
  • Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons (P/S BING WU ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons (P/S DAN MINTZ ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2014
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2014
  • Notice of Continuance Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2014
  • Notice of Continuance Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC545169    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: 47

Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute v. Dan Mintz, et al.

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Dan Mintz, Bing Wu, DMG Entertainment, LLC and H2F Entertainment, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff allegedly provided medical treatment and medical research services to Defendants. Defendants have not paid outstanding invoices for such services totaling over $1.5 million.

Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents from third parties New Hope Fertility Center and Dr. John Zhang.

TENTATIVE RULING:

On December 23, 2019, this motion was continued to this date to give Defendant an opportunity to either explain their objections to particular requests in these third-party subpoenas or to confirm that they have chosen to obtain the records themselves or have signed HIPPA releases authorizing Plaintiff to obtain them.

On January 9, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration stating that Defendants have opted to obtain the medical records themselves from New Hope Fertility Center and Dr. John Zhang and produce them. (Declaration of Thomas E. Wallerstein ¶ 2.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is DENIED AS MOOT.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 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

Case Number: BC545169    Hearing Date: December 23, 2019    Dept: 47

Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute v. Dan Mintz, et al.

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Dan Mintz, Bing Wu, DMG Entertainment, LLC and H2F Entertainment, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff allegedly provided medical treatment and medical research services to Defendants. Defendants have not paid outstanding invoices for such services totaling over $1.5 million.

Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents from third parties New Hope Fertility Center and Dr. John Zhang.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is CONTINUED to January 23, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendants object to any particular requests in the third-party subpoenas, they are to file a separate statement explaining their objections by January 9, 2020. Plaintiff may respond by January 16, 2020. If Defendants have no objections to the scope of the subpoenas, they are to file a declaration by January 9, 2020 confirming that they have either chosen to obtain the records themselves and produce them or that they have signed HIPPA releases authorizing Plaintiff to obtain the requested documents.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Compel Production of Documents Pursuant To Third-Party Subpoena

Meet and Confer Declaration

The Declaration of Attorney Jason Riddick demonstrates compliance with the meet and confer requirement of CCP § 2025.480(b) as to the motion itself. As to the HIPPA releases, however, it appears that the parties may still be able to reach agreement, as discussed below.

Timeliness

A motion under CCP § 2025.480 must be made “no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) Where a deponent serves an objection to a deposition notice and does not appear, the “record of the deposition” is complete no later than the day set for the deposition, triggering the 60-day time limitation as of that day. (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 131-136.)

Here, the deposition production deadline was August 26, 2019. (Riddick Decl. ¶ 11.) The motion was filed 60 days later, on October 25, 2019, and is therefore timely.

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants Dan Mintz . . . and Bing Wu . . . to provide New York law compliant HIPPA authorizations required by non-parties New Hope Fertility Center . . . and Dr. John Zhang . . . under New York law as a prerequisite to production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s subpoenas.” (Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, at unnumbered[1] pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 2025.480, which provides:

(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.

(CCP § 2025.480(a) (bold emphasis added).)

This Court cannot compel Defendants Mintz and Wu to sign HIPPA releases pursuant to CCP § 2025.480. To do so would, in essence, require them to create a document that does not currently exist. CCP § 2025.480 requires only that a deponent produce existing documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things under its control.

On the other hand, Defendants Mintz and Wu certainly have reasonable “control” over their medical records, even if those documents are not in their possession or custody. Moreover, it appears that the documents sought are relevant to this action, and Defendants’ counsel has not objected to the production of these documents from other parties. (Riddick Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13.)

Accordingly, in lieu of providing HIPPA releases to third parties New Hope and Dr. Zhang, Defendants may opt to obtain the records themselves and produce them. Otherwise, their option is to sign HIPPA releases that would authorize Plaintiff to obtain the medical records through its third-party subpoenas.[2]

With these choices in mind, and based on Defendants’ opposition, it appears that an additional attempt to meet and confer over these options may be fruitful. Accordingly, this motion is CONTINUED to January 23, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendants object to any particular requests in the third-party subpoenas, they are to file a separate statement explaining their objections by January 9, 2020. Plaintiff may respond by January 16, 2020. If Defendants have no objections to the scope of the subpoenas, they are to file a declaration by January 9, 2020 confirming that they have either chosen to obtain the records themselves and produce them or that they have signed HIPPA releases authorizing Plaintiff to obtain the requested documents.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2019 ___________________________________

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


[1] Plaintiff’s motion violates CRC 3.1110(c), which requires page numbering to “begin with the first page.” The number may be suppressed on that page, but the first page of the document must be page 1, not the third page as here. This rule was amended to ensure that PDFs of documents would have page numbers electronically that match the page numbers in the document, and these do not.

[2] For example, and to be clear: Perhaps it is an acceptable compromise for the parties to simply agree that each Defendant will sign the appropriate HIPPA releases, produce them to Plaintiff’s counsel, who will then obtain the medical records at issue, at Plaintiff’s sole expense, with the agreement that a full and complete copy of all records obtained will be immediately given to Defendants’ counsel, also at Plaintiff’s sole expense. This would be a reasonable manner in which to resolve this issue.