On 11/16/2016 CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSE ANTONIO ALATORRE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****0212
11/16/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
ALIGHIRE CHRISTOPHER
ALATORRE JOSE ANTONIO
INDEL ENGINEERING INC.
DOES 1-50
SAGHIAN EDWIN ESQ.
DORDICK GARY A. ESQ.
GARBER MARC HOWARD ESQ.
9/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
11/4/2019: Association of Attorney
1/15/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF ALAA A. YASIN WITH EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
1/30/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/6/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF ALAA A. YASIN
2/14/2020: Order - ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS INDEL ENGINEERIN INC. AND JOSE ANTONIO ALATORRES EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF, MOTION CUT-OFF AND LIMI
2/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED)
2/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS INDEL ENGINEERING, INC....)
3/20/2020: Notice of Ruling
4/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MAY 22, 2020 HEARING) OF 04/17/2020
4/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MAY 22, 2020 HEARING)
4/5/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
6/12/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
2/8/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information -
1/29/2019: Motion to Continue - Motion to Continue Final Status Conference/Trial
1/29/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue the trial and fsc
2/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue the trial and fsc)
3/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 03/04/2019
Hearing09/02/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference
Docketat 4:20 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re Continuance of May 22, 2020 Hearing) of 04/17/2020); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re Continuance of May 22, 2020 Hearing)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 10:49 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: March 18, 2020)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
DocketOther Summons
DocketSummons; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
DocketNOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint
DocketComplaint; Filed by Christopher Alighire (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC640212 Hearing Date: March 09, 2020 Dept: 32
CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE, Plaintiff, v.
Jose Antonio Alatorre, et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC640212
Hearing Date: March 9, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: DEFENDANTS’ motion for protective order
|
Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jose Alatorre (“Alatorre”) and Indel Engineering, Inc. (“Indel”) (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision on February 5, 2016. Alatorre was driving in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Now, Indel moves for a protective order to preclude the deposition of its Person Most Knowledgeable regarding the hiring, retention, and supervision of Alatorre. Plaintiff has filed a notice stating that he does not oppose the motion. Therefore, the motion is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: March 9, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC640212 Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Dept: 32
CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE, Plaintiff, v.
Jose Antonio Alatorre, et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC640212
Hearing Date: February 27, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: DEFENDANTS’ motion to quash subpoena
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jose Alatorre (“Alatorre”) and Marina Shipyard (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision on February 5, 2016. Alatorre was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Marina Shipyard at the time of the accident. During the course of his investigation, Plaintiff’s counsel discovered that Alatorre maintained a Twitter account that was not “locked,” meaning that any member of the public could review Alatorre’s posts. Among other posts, Alatorre discussed his marijuana use at work, and some of those posts appear to be contemporaneous with the accident. Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Twitter to receive authenticated copies of these posts. Defendants move to quash the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena violates Alatorre’s privacy interests, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion for protective order, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, 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, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
In this case, Plaintiff has determined that Alatorre uses the Twitter account @big_jokes_lbc. (See Declaration of Alaa A. Yashin, ¶¶ 5-8.) Alatorre has a right to privacy, meaning that the Court cannot order disclosure of the records of that activity unless it determines that disclosure serves a compelling interest. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)
The Court has considered the probative value of these posts and finds that disclosure serves a compelling interest. The public postings reference Alatorre’s marijuana use, including while Alatorre was at work. (See Declaration of Alaa A.Yashin, Exh. B.) This is relevant for three reasons. First, if Alatorre was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, that evidence is relevant to establishing his liability. Second, in his discovery responses, Alatorre denied marijuana use within 24 hours of the accident. (See Declaration of Alaa A.Yashin, Exhibit A.) The records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter within the two-day period surrounding the accident appear to be relevant to impeach Alatorre’s denial of marijuana use. Third, any records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter about use of marijuana in the workplace are relevant to whether Marina Shipyard negligently entrusted the vehicle at issue to Alatorre.
The Court finds that this compelling interest outweighs any privacy interest by Alatorre. First and foremost, Alatorre took no steps to protect his posts from any member of the public (including Plaintiff’s counsel) from reading them. In other words, Alatorre apparently did not “lock” his account to ensure that only his friends would read his posts. In that sense, Alatorre made a conscious decision to publicize his posts to the entire internet. Alatorre cannot publicize his posts indiscriminately and then claim a privacy interest in those same posts. Moreover, the subpoena is narrowly tailored to obtain the relevant documents. Finally, if the records are not relevant or if the probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice, the trial court can exclude them pursuant to a motion in limine. Discoverability and admissibility are two separate issues.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is a compelling interest requiring disclosure of the tweets at issue that is not outweighed by Alatorre’s privacy interests. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to quash is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: February 27, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC640212 Hearing Date: February 19, 2020 Dept: 32
CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE, Plaintiffs, v.
JOSE ANTONIO ALATORRE, et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: BC640212
Hearing Date: February 19, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel
|
Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set Two (“RFAs”), which were served upon Defendant Jose Antonio Alatorre (“Defendant”) on July 18, 2019. Because they were served by mail, verified responses were due on or before August 22, 2019. There were delays in responding because Defendant resides outside of the United States. Defendant filed a motion for a protective order seeking additional time to respond to discovery. The Court denied the motion as moot because Plaintiff agreed to extend the deadline to November 28, 2019. Defendant provided verified responses to the RFAs before the hearing, so the motion is denied as moot except with respect to sanctions.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,110 against Defendant and counsel-of-record. The Court finds that the conduct in this case constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, warranting sanctions. Defendant had over four months to respond to the RFAs and failed to do so. Moreover, Defendant’s verification page is dated November 7, 2019. (Declaration of Benjamin A. Sampson, Exh. #2.) Yet, the responses were not served until December 10, 2019. (Ibid.) Even then, the responses were served by mail rather than personally or by overnight delivery, suggesting that Defendant did not move with alacrity in fulfilling his discovery obligations. More important, Defendant’s responses were verified three weeks before the deadline, so the failure to satisfy the stipulated deadline of November 28, 2019, is inexcusable. Therefore, sanctions are warranted, and the amount requested by Plaintiff is fair and reasonable under the circumstances considering the work undertaken in this case.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs to have been admitted is denied as moot except with respect to sanctions. The Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,110 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: February 19, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC640212 Hearing Date: November 08, 2019 Dept: 5
CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE, Plaintiff, v.
Jose Antonio Alatorre, et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC640212
Hearing Date: November 8, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: DEFENDANTS’ motion For a Protective Order REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS and form interrogatories
|
Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Alatorre (“Defendant Alatorre”), who was driving in the course of his employment for Marina Shipyard d/b/a Indel Engineering (“Marina Shipyard”) (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants filed a protective order seeking additional time to respond to discovery requests. This motion is denied as moot because Plaintiff has agreed to extend the deadline for Defendants’ responses to November 28, 2019. Although Defendants technically can re-file this motion after that date, the Court reminds the parties that it expects them to work collaboratively and to be reasonable in order to avoid motions on issues that the parties should be able to resolve themselves. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.
DATED: November 8, 2019 ___________________________
Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court