This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 14:17:31 (UTC).

MARIELOS YAMILET JIMENEZ VS MING CHIM

Case Summary

On 12/05/2016 MARIELOS YAMILET JIMENEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MING CHIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2441

  • Filing Date:

    12/05/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

JIMENEZ MARIELOS YAMILET

GUARDADO MARIELOS YAMILET ALFARO

Defendants and Respondents

CHIM MING

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CHAFFIN KEVIN D. ESQ.

YE JOHN C. ESQ.

MATHIS THANE RAHAUSEN

Defendant Attorney

SHAW PAULA M.

 

Court Documents

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION/MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

3/23/2018: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION/MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

PROOF OF SERVICE

4/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE

Minute Order

12/13/2018: Minute Order

Notice

12/20/2018: Notice

Motion in Limine

5/17/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/17/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/17/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/17/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/17/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/20/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/20/2019: Motion in Limine

Reply

6/3/2019: Reply

Opposition

6/3/2019: Opposition

Reply

6/3/2019: Reply

Reply

6/3/2019: Reply

Ex Parte Application

6/13/2019: Ex Parte Application

DEFENDANT MING CHIM'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WITH NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

2/28/2017: DEFENDANT MING CHIM'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WITH NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Unknown

2/28/2017: Unknown

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial, FSC) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial, FSC); Filed by Marielos Yamilet Jimenez (Plaintiff); Marielos Yamilet Alfaro Guardado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial, FSC)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Reply (Brief ISO MIL no. 8); Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Opposition (to MIL no. 2); Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Opposition (to MIL no. 6); Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Reply (brief ISO MIL no. 11); Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Opposition (to MIL no. 3); Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 03/28/2017
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Marielos Yamilet Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Ming Chim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DEFENDANT MING CHIM'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WITH NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DEFENDANT MING CHIM'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Marielos Yamilet Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC642441    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO METHODIST HOSPITAL FOR DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Marielos Yamilet Jiminez, also known as Marielos Yamilet Alfaro Guardado (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Ming Chim (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 12, 2014. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff issued a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Methodist Hospital in Arcadia with a production date of September 30, 2019. Defendant served objections on September 3, 2019. The subpoena sought all medical records, medical bills, intake forms, photos, and absence-from-work forms for Defendant’s visit to the emergency room on December 12, 2014, as well as those created after his visit and any other medical records about Defendant. Defendant moves to quash the entirety of the subpoena and seeks monetary sanctions.

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

Defendant argues that his medical records are protected by the constitutional right of privacy and the physician-patient privilege. Defendant further argues that the medical records are irrelevant as experts will testify as to the force of the collision. In opposition, Plaintiff argues the subpoena seeks relevant records because Defendant argues the impact did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries, and Defendant’s injuries are probative of the force of the impact. Also, Defendant testified at deposition about his injuries.

Defendant did not tender his own medical condition by questioning Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The interrogatory responses attached to Plaintiff’s opposition brief state Defendant’s position – that Plaintiff at most sustained soft tissue injuries that should have resolved in a short period of time, and that Plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not substantiated by Plaintiff’s medical records. Defendant’s medical records are not probative of the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries caused by the accident and whether Plaintiff’s medical records support Plaintiff’s contentions about Plaintiff’s injuries.

Also, the subpoena requests far more than information on Defendant’s injuries caused by the accident. The subpoena asks for all medical records “created after his visit” and for “Any and all medical records concerning [Defendant].” Thus, if Defendant was treated at the hospital before the accident or returned to the hospital for other reasons after the accident, the records would fall within the requests. In addition, the amount billed does not necessarily indicate that Defendant was injured, as it is likely Defendant would have been billed for the visit, regardless of whether he was injured.

The motion to quash is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.