This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/23/2019 at 00:00:34 (UTC).

ALMA VERONICA ROMERO VS PIC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/29/2017 ALMA VERONICA ROMERO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against PIC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7110

  • Filing Date:

    06/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

ROMERO ALMA VERONICA

Defendants and Respondents

COREA JORGE ALBERTO

PIC

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

YAGOUBZADEH JOSHUA ESQ.

YAGHOUBZADEH JOSHUA E. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

PURCELL BYRON MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

6/29/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

6/29/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

6/29/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

Unknown

6/29/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

7/9/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Personal Service

4/17/2018: Proof of Personal Service

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketAnswer (DEFENDANT P.I.C.'s ANSWER TO COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES> DEMANDFOR JURY TRIAL); Filed by Pic (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 10/22/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Alma Veronica Romero (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****7110 Hearing Date: October 29, 2021 Dept: 30

Legal Standard

Production of Documents

Proper service of notice of deposition compels the opposing party to appear, to testify, and to produce documents if requested. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.280(a).) Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

A motion to compel production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of the requested document. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good Cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.]; ;Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].)

Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2031.260 (a) provides that Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.

Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. ;; 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id.)

Discussion

Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to the Production Request

Here, the Plaintiffs move the Court to issue orders compelling Defendant to produce responses to Plaintiffs’ Production Request, which were initially served on Defendant on October 23, 2019. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2031.260 (a) the Defendants response would have been due on Saturday, November 23, 2019, however, Plaintiffs allotted two additional days which changes the due days to Monday, November 25, 2019.

Plaintiffs provided evidence that Defendants requested a two-week extension pass the November 25, 2019 deadline. The Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Request for Production was now set for December 8, 2019. Defendants then requested an extension to December 31, 2019, however, Defendant and Plaintiff have failed to show that Plaintiff agreed to the request. Therefore, the Defendant should have provided the Request for Production on the date of the two-week extension December 11, 2019.

The Court finds that the Defendants failed to get confirmation from the Plaintiff regarding the December 31, 2019 extension, failed to adhere to the original deadline, and failed to provide information regarding the handling attorneys health, failed to ask the Plaintiff to take the COVID-19 Pandemic into consideration or ask for an extension past the December 31, 2019 deadline. Defendant’s opposition papers did not contain any attachments which would reflect a valid reason for them not to answer the Request for Production on the deadline. (See generally Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff Alma Romero, Decl. Byron Purcell, Esq.) Although, the Defendant’s served a response to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production on October 11, 2021, the response was untimely. Although Defendant’s response was untimely, the Court cannot impose a motion to compel after Defendant’s provided evidence that responses were sent to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Here, The Court the Plaintiff’s motion to compel in connection to the Request for Production is DENIED.

The Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id.)

Plaintiff requests for monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $1,110. The Court is not going to impose sanctions on the Defendant as there is insufficient evidence of Defendant’s fault.

Plaintiff moves the Court to grant monetary sanctions in a total amount of $1110. The monetary sanctions are warranted against Defendant’s counsel of record because counsel has failed to show substantial justification for the extraordinarily long delay in providing responses, six months after the filing of the motion to compel and almost two years after the responses were due.

This figure of $1,110.00 represents the amount of time spent in preparing the Notice(s) and Motion(s), which amounted to $350/hour for an hour for preparing the motion, the point and authorities, an anticipated 1 hour for replying to and oppositions and appearance time of 1 hour, for a total of three hours, and $60 filing fee cost, which amounted to $1,110.00. (See Plaintiffs’ Motions, Declarations of Matthew Manavi, Esq. (“Decl. Manavi,” ¶ 17.)

The Court will reduce the hourly rate to $250 per hour and impose sanctions accordingly in the amount of $810.

Conclusion

The Plaintiff Romero’s Motion to Compel Defendant to produce responses to Plaintiff Romero’s Demand for Production of Documents and Things to Defendant P.I.C., Set two is DENIED as moot.

The Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $810 against Defense Counsel is GRANTED. Defense counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

'


Case Number: ****7110    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: 28

The court would like to hear the parties argue.


Case Number: ****7110    Hearing Date: January 29, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Alma Veronica Romero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants P.I.C., Jorge Alberto Correa (“Correa”), and Does 1 to 50 alleging negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability based on a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 1, 2015.

On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Correa to appear for a deposition.  

Trial is scheduled for April 26, 2021.  

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant Correa to appear for deposition.  Plaintiff argues that it has been trying to depose Plaintiff since May 7, 2019, with his deposition having been set five times since then, and Plaintiff has still been unable to obtain Correa’s testimony.  Plaintiff additionally requests monetary sanctions against Defendant Correa and counsel of record jointly and severally in the amount of $1,580.  

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.010.)  

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 states if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of Defendant CorreaPlaintiff’s counsel indicates that Plaintiff has noticed Correa’s deposition five times and still have been unable to depose her due to Correa’s objections on the basis of unavailability and lack of effort to cooperate with the scheduling of her deposition. Further, Correa did not object to the last notice of deposition for August 27, 2020.

Here, Plaintiff has noticed five depositions for Correa, but Correa objected on the basis of unavailability, failed to provide alternative dates, and failed to object to the notice of deposition served on August 6, 2020 for August 27, 2020. On August 24, 2020, Correa’s counsel sent an e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel indicating that the deposition must be cancelled because Correa is not available. However, the email is not an objection. On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Correa’s counsel. Correa’s counsel did not respond to the correspondence due to being on medical leave. On October 27, 2020 the instant motion was filed as Plaintiff’s counsel had not received a response. Correa’s counsel only responded and provided alternative dates nearly a month after the motion was filed, and over two months after Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer correspondence, on November 24, 2020; November 25, 2020; December 2, 2020; and December 9, 2020

In light of the repeated attempts to schedule Correa’s deposition, lack of efforts to provide alternative dates until a month after the instant motion was filed, and the fact that the August 27, 2020 deposition was never objected to, the motion is GRANTED. 

Correa is ordered to appear for his deposition on a mutually agreeable date within 45 days of this order.

In light of Correa’s failure to confer with Plaintiff until well after the instant motion was filed, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification and there are no other circumstances making the imposition of the sanctions unjust.  Accordingly, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $795 ($200 x 2 hours, $320 for non-appearance costs, $60 in filing fees, and $15 Court Connect). 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED. 

Defendant Correa is ordered to appear for his deposition on a mutually agreeable date within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Correa and counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $785 within 30 days of this order.  

Plaintiff to give notice.  

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.  



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer YAGHOUBZADEH, JOSHUA E