Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/05/2020 at 18:30:52 (UTC).

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/25/2015 WILLIAM M DORFMAN DDS filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against PATTI CANTOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD, ROBERT B. BROADBELT and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2388

  • Filing Date:

    11/25/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Petitioners

CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. D.D.S.

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. DDS DBA CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY AN INDIVIDUAL

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. DDS DBA CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY

ROES 1-50

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. DDS

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Appellants

CANTOR PATTIE

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. DDS DBA CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY AN INDIVIDUAL

DORFMAN WILLIAM M. DDS DBA CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

KOSDON COSMETIC DENTISTRY

KOSDON MICHAEL D. D.D.S.

CANTOR PATTI

LINDA HUREVITZ B

KOSDON MICHAEL D. D.D.S. DBA KOSDON COSMETIC DENTISTRY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

KOSDON COSMETIC DENTISTRY

KOSDON MICHAEL D. D.D.S.

CANTOR PATTI

Not Classified By Court

GUERRA SANDRA

SALYER DAVID

WILCOX WIL S.

DAVIDSON GAIL R.

WALTERS CORSON LAWANNA

KWON-CHANG CHRSTINE

LAW OFFICES OF BARRY B KAUFMAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF BARRY B. KAUFMAN APC

KAUFMAN BARRY B. ESQ.

HUREVITZ LINDA BETH

SCHONBUCH MICHAEL NEIL

SCHONBUCH MICHAEL N. ESQ.

REZNIK PHILIP LEE

HUREVITZ LINDA B. ESQ.

RANEN JEFFREY S. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WATKINS DANIEL R. ESQ.

DONAHOO RICHARD E. ESQ.

DRACHT PHILIP D. ESQ.

LONG MICHAEL FRANCIS

KOKONAS SARAH LOUISE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DONAHOO RICHARD E. ESQ.

DRACHT PHILIP D. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PATTI CANTOR'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM DORFMAN AND ATTORNEY BARRY KAUFMAN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF UNDER CCP 473(B)

3/19/2018: PATTI CANTOR'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM DORFMAN AND ATTORNEY BARRY KAUFMAN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF UNDER CCP 473(B)

Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING FINANCIAL CONDITION DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANTS CANTOR AND KOSDON

11/9/2018: Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING FINANCIAL CONDITION DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANTS CANTOR AND KOSDON

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

11/19/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10

2/4/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application DEFENDANTS JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

2/25/2020: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application DEFENDANTS JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Notice of Ruling

8/14/2019: Notice of Ruling

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

6/28/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

OBER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

5/18/2018: OBER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

6/1/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

PI General Order - PI General Order re: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (etc) and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance (etc)

10/29/2018: PI General Order - PI General Order re: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (etc) and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance (etc)

Motion re: - Motion For Financial Condition Discovery

11/20/2018: Motion re: - Motion For Financial Condition Discovery

Notice of Continuance - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Plaintiff/Cross Defendant's Ex Parte Application for a Continuance of Cross- Complainant's Motion for Order Permitting Financial Discovery

11/30/2018: Notice of Continuance - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Plaintiff/Cross Defendant's Ex Parte Application for a Continuance of Cross- Complainant's Motion for Order Permitting Financial Discovery

Order - Order RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PLAITNTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

1/18/2019: Order - Order RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PLAITNTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

Objection - OBJECTION EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LINDA B. HUREVITZ

5/31/2019: Objection - OBJECTION EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LINDA B. HUREVITZ

Minute Order -

11/1/2016: Minute Order -

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT PATTI CANTOR'S OPPOSITION TO WILLIAM DORFMAN, D.D.S' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES; ETC

3/30/2017: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT PATTI CANTOR'S OPPOSITION TO WILLIAM DORFMAN, D.D.S' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES; ETC

CROSS-DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

10/6/2017: CROSS-DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

796 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/27/2020
  • Hearing07/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Document Production

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • Hearing07/08/2020 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Hearing06/30/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Release of Cross-Complainant Patti Cantor's Mental Health Records by Court Order, or in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Cantor to Sign Authorizations for Release of her Mental Health Records;

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Hearing06/25/2020 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Hearing06/25/2020 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Release of Cross-Complainant Patti Cantor's Mental Health Records by Court Order, or in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Cantor to Sign Authorizations for Release of her Mental Health Records;) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court Order dated April 27, 2020); Filed by William M. Dorfman, DDS (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • Docketat 3:58 PM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
1,298 More Docket Entries
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Pattie Cantor (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketDEFENDANT PATTI CANTOR'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM M. DORFMAN, D.D.S. DOING BUSINESS AS CENTURY CITY AESTHETIC DENTISTRY'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Pattie Cantor (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Michael D. D.D.S. Kosdon (Defendant); Kosdon Cosmetic Dentistry (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • DocketANSWER TO PLAINTIFF''S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC602388    Hearing Date: July 28, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

william m. dorfman, d.d.s. ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

patti cantor , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC602388

Hearing Date:

July 28, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

Defendants’ joint motion for order compelling production of documents, further deposition of sennette beltran and for monetary sanctions in amount of $20,970 against plaintiff and his attorneys of record

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Patti Cantor and Michael D. Kosdon D.D.S.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff William M. Dorfman

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents, Further Deposition of Sennette Beltran and for Monetary Sanctions in Amount of $20,970 Against Plaintiff and His Attorneys of Record

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of his opposition to this motion. The court did not grant Plaintiff leave to file any supplemental papers in connection with this motion, and Plaintiff’s July 24, 2020 supplemental declaration is therefore unauthorized and untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Therefore, the court exercises its discretion to disregard Plaintiff’s July 24, 2020 supplemental declaration.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff William M. Dorfman, D.D.S. (“Dr. Dorfman”) filed this action on November 25, 2015, against defendants Patti Cantor (“Cantor”) and Michael D. Kosdon, D.D.S. (“Dr. Kosdon”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 8, 2019. Cantor filed her Cross-Complaint on January 19, 2016 against Dr. Dorfman. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on January 16, 2020.

On October 31, 2019, the court granted Cantor’s ex parte application to continue the trial date in this action. (Order on Ex Parte Application, filed October 31, 2019.) The court ordered the trial continued from November 27, 2019, to March 11, 2020.[1] (Ibid.) The court further ordered that “[o]nly the expert discovery cut-off and expert discovery motion cut-off dates shall be extended and based on the new trial date.” (Ibid.)

Dr. Dorfman has designated Sennette Beltran (“Beltran”) as a nonretained expert for Dr. Dorfman. (Donahoo Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. C.) On January 31, 2020, Cantor issued and served a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things directed to Beltran, requiring Beltran to appear to testify as a witness at deposition and to produce the documents described in Attachment 3 on February 21, 2020. (Donahoo Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. D.) On February 21, 2020, Beltran testified at the deposition and produced documents in response to the deposition subpoena. (Donahoo Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

On February 26, 2020, Defendants filed this motion to compel production of documents and further deposition of Beltran, and presented to the court an ex parte application (filed February 25, 2020) for (1) an order continuing the Final Status Conference then set for February 28, 2020, and (2) an order compelling production of documents and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $20,970 against Dr. Dorfman and his attorneys. The court denied Defendants’ ex parte application. (Minute Order, filed February 26, 2020.)

Defendants now move for (1) an order compelling Dr. Dorfman to produce documents, (2) an order compelling further deposition of Beltran, and (3) an order imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $20,970 against Dr. Dorfman and his attorneys. Dr. Dorfman opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

In his opposition, Dr. Dorfman contends that Defendants’ motion is barred by the discovery motion cut-off set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Subdivision (b) provides: “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.030 provides: “Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to a witness identified under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) on or before the 15th day, and to have motions concerning that discovery heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”

Here, the applicable discovery motion cut-off date was based on the November 27, 2019 trial date, and motions concerning discovery were required to be heard on or before the 15th day before November 27, 2019 -- i.e., on or before November 12, 2019. Although the trial date has subsequently been continued, the court has not extended the discovery motion cut-off date except for certain motions for sanctions not relevant to this motion. For the expert discovery cut-off and expert discovery motion cut-off dates, the court extended and based the cut-off dates on the March 11, 2020 trial date. (Order on Ex Parte Application, filed October 31, 2019.) Therefore, motions concerning expert discovery were required to be heard on or before the 10th day before March 11, 2020 -- i.e., on or before March 1, 2020.

Defendants have implicitly acknowledged that the instant motion is barred by the expert discovery motion cut-off date because, as discussed above, Defendants presented an ex parte application on February 26, 2020, seeking relief from the court to shorten time on the hearing on this motion. The court denied Defendants’ request, and it is an abuse of discretion by a trial court to consider a discovery motion past the discovery motion cut-off date without first reopening discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.) Therefore, the court denies Defendants’ motion because it is barred by the discovery motion and expert discovery motion cut-off dates under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2024.020 and 2024.030, respectively.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court denies defendants Patti Cantor and Michael D. Kosdon D.D.S.’s motion to compel production of documents and further deposition of Sennette Beltran.

The court denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

The court orders plaintiff William M. Dorfman to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 28, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] The court subsequently continued the trial a number of times, and most recently to July 27, 2020. (Minute Order, filed June 25, 2020.)

Case Number: BC602388    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

william m. dorfman, d.d.s. ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

patti cantor , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC602388

Hearing Date:

July 6, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion to compel release of cross-complainant patti cantor’s mental health records by court order, or in the alternative, for an order compelling cantor to sign authorizations for release of her mental health records

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff and cross-defendant William M. Dorfman, D.D.S.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and cross-complainant Patti Cantor

Motion to Compel Release of Cross-Complainant Patti Cantor’s Mental Health Records by Court Order, or In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Cantor to Sign Authorizations for Release of Her Mental Health Records

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff William M. Dorfman, D.D.S. (“Dr. Dorfman”) filed this action on November 25, 2015, against defendants Patti Cantor (“Cantor”) and Michael D. Kosdon, D.D.S. (“Dr. Kosdon”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 8, 2019. Cantor filed her Cross-Complaint on January 19, 2016 against Dr. Dorfman. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on January 16, 2020.

On September 17, 2019, the court granted Dr. Dorfman’s motions to grant him leave to serve on Cantor an additional Supplemental Interrogatory and an additional Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, limited to seeking later-acquired information about damages Cantor is seeking on her Cross-Complaint. (Order, filed September 17, 2019.) The court ordered that discovery was reopened for the limited purpose of permitting Dr. Dorfman to serve on Cantor the supplemental discovery requests. (Ibid.)

On October 17, 2019, Cantor served her responses to Dr. Dorfman’s supplemental discovery requests, and her responses included statements that she was receiving on-going mental health care for “[s]evere emotional distress in the form of embarrassment, humiliation, aggravation, anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, severe panic attacks, extreme stress exhaustion and fearful to the point of paralysis.” (Hurevitz Decl., Exh. 2, Supp. Response to Form Interrogatory -- Employment No. 212.2, p. 7:22-24.) Cantor also identified several psychologists and psychiatrists from whom she has been receiving mental health treatment. (Hurevitz Decl., Exh. 2, Supp. Response to Form Interrogatory -- Employment No. 212.4.)

On October 31, 2019, the court granted Cantor’s ex parte application to continue the trial date in this action. (Order on Ex Parte Application, filed October 31, 2019.) The court ordered the trial continued from November 27, 2019, to March 11, 2020.[1] (Ibid.) The court further ordered that “[o]nly the expert discovery cut-off and expert discovery motion cut-off dates shall be extended and based on the new trial date.” (Ibid.)

On December 6, 2019, Dr. Dorfman presented to the court an ex parte application (filed December 5, 2019) for:

  1. an order granting relief from the discovery motion cut-off date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to allow Dr. Dorfman’s “Motion To Compel Cantor’s Mental Health Records Or In the Alternative For An Order Requiring Cantor To Sign Authorizations For The Release Of Her Mental Health Records” to be heard;

  2. an order specially setting Dr. Dorfman’s “Motion To Compel Release Of Cross-Complainant Patti Cantor’s Mental Health Records By Court Order, Or In The Alternative, For An Order Compelling Cantor To Sign Authorizations Release Of Her Mental Health Records;” and

  3. an order allowing Dr. Dorfman’s “Motion For Discovery Sanctions,” set for January 6, 2020, to be heard notwithstanding the discovery motion cut-off date.

The court granted Dr. Dorfman’s Ex Parte Application in part and denied it in part. The court ordered that the cut-off date to hold the hearing on Dr. Dorfman’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions was extended until and including Jnauary 31, 2020, and that the hearing on that motion was continued from January 6, 2020 to January 17, 2020. (Minute order, filed December 6, 2019.) The court denied the relief requested in the ex parte application concerning Dr. Dorfman’s Motion to Compel Release of Cross-Complainant Patti Cantor’s Mental Health Records by Court Order, or in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Cantor to Sign Authorizations for Release of Her Mental Health Records. (Ibid.)

Dr. Dorfman now moves for an order compelling Cantor’s treating mental health care providers to release Cantor’s mental health care records to Dr. Dorfman. Dr. Dorfman alternatively moves for an order compelling Cantor to sign authorizations for the release of her mental health records. Dr. Dorfman also moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 imposing monetary and evidentiary sanctions against Cantor and her attorneys. Cantor opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

In her opposition, Cantor contends that Dr. Dorfman’s motion is barred by the discovery motion cut-off set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Subdivision (b) provides: “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part: “On a motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.”

Here, the applicable discovery motion cut-off date was based on the November 27, 2019 trial date, and motions concerning discovery were to be heard on or before the 15th day before November 27, 2019 – i.e., on or before November 12, 2019. Although the trial date has subsequently been continued, the court has not extended the discovery motion cut-off date except for certain motions for sanctions not relevant to this motion. On November 8, 2019, Cantor filed an ex parte application for relief from the discovery motion cut-off so that her pending motion for sanctions could be heard. The court granted in part Cantor’s ex parte application and ordered “that the cut-off date to have defendant/cross-complainant Patti Cantor’s motion for monetary sanctions and further relief for plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-order dated 6-28-19, filed October 24, 2019, heard is extended until and including January 31, 2020.” (Minute order, filed November 8, 2019.) The court similarly granted in part Dr. Dorfman’s December 6, 2019 Ex Parte Application, and ordered “that the cut-off date to hold the hearing on plaintiff/cross-defendant William M. Dorfman, D.D.D.’s Motion for Sanctions and Other Relief for Non-Compliance with 10-2-19 Discovery Order Compelling Further Responses to 7th Request for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant Patti Cantor, filed December 3, 2019, is extended until and including January 31, 2020.” (Minute order, filed December 6, 2019.) The court denied Dr. Dorfman’s request for relief from the discovery motion cut-off date as to the instant motion. (Ibid.)

Dr. Dorfman acknowledges that the instant motion is barred by the discovery motion cut-off date because, as discussed above, Dr. Dorfman filed an ex parte application on December 6, 2019, seeking relief from the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to reopen discovery so that the instant motion could be heard. The court denied Dr. Dorfman’s request pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, and it is an abuse of discretion by a trial court to consider a discovery motion past the discovery motion cut-off date without first reopening discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) Therefore, the court denies Dr. Dorfman’s motion because it is barred by the discovery motion cut-off date under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.

But, even if the instant motion were not barred by the discovery motion cut-off date, the court would still deny the motion because it is without merit. Dr. Dorfman does not cite any statutory or other authority that authorizes the court to issue the orders he is requesting. Dr. Dorfman first cites Civil Code section 56.10 for the proposition that “mental healthcare providers generally may not disclose medical information without the patient’s authorization or a court order.” (Motion, p. 5:7-8.) Although section 56.10, subdivision (b) provides that a health care provider shall disclose a patient’s medical information if compelled by a court order,[2] section 56.10 does not itself authorize or provide for the court to make an order compelling such disclosure. Dr. Dorfman also cites Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5328 and 5330. Section 5328 limits disclosure of mental health care information and records obtained in the course of providing services under the listed Welfare and Institutions Code statutes to certain enumerated cases, including to the courts (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5328, subd. (a)(6)). Section 5330 creates a private right of action for damages against an individual who has willfully and knowingly released confidential information or records in violation of Chapter 2 of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) or Chapter 1 (commencing with section 11860) of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code. But neither section 5328 nor section 5330 authorizes the court to make an order compelling a health care provider to disclose confidential patient information or records. Instead, other statutes provide methods for a party to obtain records from nonparty witnesses, such as a deposition subpoena for production of business records or a civil subpoena duces tecum (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985, subd. (a), 2020.020, subd. (b)), and authorize the court to issue orders directing compliance with those subpoenas (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, subd. (a), 2025.450, subd. (a)). In fact, in his motion, Dr. Dorfman states that he “has served trial subpoenas on each of Cantor’s mental healthcare providers to appear and produce their treatment records at trial . . . .” (Motion, p. 8:8-10.) Finally, Dr. Dorfman has not cited any authority which requires Cantor to sign authorizations for release of her medical records, or which authorizes the court to compel Cantor to sign the authorizations.

In addition, although Dr. Dorfman’s motion requests that the court issue an order compelling Cantor’s mental health care providers to release Cantor’s mental health records to Dr. Dorfman, Dr. Dorfman has not served his motion on those mental health care providers or given them notice of the hearing on the motion. Due process requires that a nonparty against whom an order is sought is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. (See In re Marriage of Siegel (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 944, 953 [“‘“It is a fundamental concept of due process that a judgment against a defendant cannot be entered unless he was given proper notice and an opportunity to defend. (U.S. Const., [Amend.] XIV. . . .)” [Citations.]’”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 [written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel production of a document from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service].)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court denies plaintiff and cross-defendant William M. Dorfman, D.D.S.’s motion to compel release of defendant and cross-complainant Patti Cantor’s mental health care records by court order, or in the alternative, for an order compelling Cantor to sign authorizations for release of her mental health care records.

Dr. Dorfman requests monetary and evidentiary sanctions against Cantor and her attorneys pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Cantor also requests monetary sanctions against Dr. Dorfman pursuant to section 2023.030. “Section 2023.030 authorizes a court to impose the specified types of sanctions, ‘[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.’ [Citation.] This means that the statutes governing the particular discovery methods limit the permissible sanctions to those sanctions provided under the applicable governing statutes.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1422.) Because Dr. Dorfman’s motion is not made pursuant to a chapter governing any particular discovery method, and because no other provision of Title 4 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.010 et seq.) authorizes the court to impose sanctions on this motion, the court is not authorized to impose sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. The court therefore denies Dr. Dorfman’s request for monetary and evidentiary sanctions, and Cantor’s request for monetary sanctions.

The court orders defendant and cross-complainant Patti Cantor to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] The court subsequently continued the trial a number of times, and most recently to July 27, 2020. (Minute Order, filed June 25, 2020.)

[2] Subdivision (b)(3) of section 56.10 also provides that a healthcare provider shall disclose a patient’s medical information if compelled “[b]y a party to a proceeding before a court . . . pursuant to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, notice to appear served pursuant to Section 1987 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any provision authorizing discovery in a proceeding before a court . . . .”

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer WATKINS, DANIEL R