On 09/28/2017 ALONSO OCON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
****7779
09/28/2017
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
OCON ALONSO
GARCIA MARCELA
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DOES 1 TO 100
WHEELER ALEXANDER R.
PARRIS RUTGER R.
GORDON ELLERY SHANE
PARRIS RUTGER R. ESQ.
DOUGLASS JONATHAN WARREN ESQ.
YOKA & SMITH LLP
GATES JAMES W. ESQ.
FAENZA CHRISTOPHER EDWARD
GIOVACCHINI GINA N. ESQ.
FAENZA CHRISTOPHER EDWARD ESQ.
3/28/2019: Minute Order
1/30/2019: Notice of Lodging
1/18/2019: Reply
1/18/2019: Reply
1/18/2019: Objection
1/18/2019: Objection
1/23/2019: Unknown
1/11/2019: Opposition
1/11/2019: Objection
1/11/2019: Objection
1/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
11/9/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment
11/9/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment
11/9/2018: Proof of Personal Service
6/27/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
11/27/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint
12/11/2017: CORRECTED PROOF OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT MAIL
9/28/2017: COMPLAIN 1. NEGLIGENCE/CONTRACTOR LIABIIIY ;ETC
at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held
Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 03/28/2019); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sully-Miller Contracting Company (Defendant)
Notice of Ruling; Filed by City of Santa Clarita (Defendant)
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint
Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint
Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint
Complaint; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)
SUMMONS
COMPLAIN 1. NEGLIGENCE/CONTRACTOR LIABIIIY ;ETC
Case Number: BC677779 Hearing Date: February 04, 2020 Dept: 29
Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Litili LLC to Compel Litili, LLC to Comply with Subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Request No. 7: The Court grants the motion to compel with respect to this request in part. The request is overbroad. Litili LLC is ordered to produce documents created by Litili LLC, through its agents and employees, to the extent that copies of such documents have been provided to Dr. Saint Martin. Responsive documents must be produced no later than 2/10/2020.
Requests No. 8, 9 and 11: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to these requests. Requests 8 and 9 seek all agreements between Litili and Dr. Saint Martin for work as an expert for the last 10 years. Request number 11 seeks all invoices for work generated by Dr. Saint Martin for expert work for the last 10 years. Plaintiff argues that these agreements are relevant to bias.
The Court must balance the need for evidence that goes to the credibility or bias of the witness against his or her privacy interests and the privacy interests of third parties. The Court of Appeal has engaged in this balancing with respect to disclosure of financial information from expert witnesses and has concluded that an expert may be compelled to answer general questions calling for estimates of the total amount of compensation received from plaintiff- and defense-side work. See Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 447, 454 (holding that a medical expert may be asked questions directed toward disclosing “how much compensation he derives form defense work”); Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass’n v. Superior Court (200) 84 Cal. App. 4th 691, 700 (directing trial court to enter order compelling expert to provide “a numerical estimate of the amount of income generated from said defense- and plaintiff-related litigation.”) Plaintiff has not shown the need for individual agreements or invoices and the Court is not aware of any decision in which production of documents at that level of detail has been compelled.
Request No. 10: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to this request. This request seeks a list of all cases in which Dr. Saint Martin has testified as an expert for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. Litili has established that no such documents exist.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC677779 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: 29
Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment Plaintiffs’ Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034 Expert Witness List is GRANTED.
1) Plaintiffs can move to augment their expert witness list by adding the name and address of any expert witness subsequently retained if Plaintiffs engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610
There is no issue with the timeliness of each parties’ designation of experts. Plaintiffs served their designation on 9/3/19. Opposition, Ex. 1. Defendant served its designation on 8/30/19. Id., Ex. 2.
2) To grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief, the court must find that Plaintiffs would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to include this expert as a non-retained expert on safety measures and controls for lane closures -- or that the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620(c).
While Plaintiffs have designated retained experts on design standards and traffic control plans, requirements for and placement of traffic control devices, as well as construction zone safety (Opposition, Ex. 1, Declaration of Alexander Wheeler, ¶ 1), Plaintiffs have established that they could not have determined to include Eric Serrano as a non-retained expert at the time of Plaintiffs’ initial designation given that Defendant did not produce Mr. Serrano for deposition until 12/10/19 after expert witness lists had already been exchanged. Plaintiffs did not previously know the substance of his testimony and his qualifications to render any opinions. Declaration of Jonathan Douglass, ¶ 4.
3) The court has discretion to grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list after considering the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.610 (a), (b).
Defendant has not established that it has relied on the Plaintiffs’ expert witness designation to such an extent that it will suffer prejudice in maintaining its action or defense on the merits. Defendant argues a number of things -- that Mr. Serrano is not qualified to render an expert opinion, and therefore, his testimony is inadmissible; his testimony adds nothing to the case; his testimony is more prejudicial than probative; and the testimony is duplicative and cumulative. Motion 2:3-18.
These arguments are irrelevant to the motion. They are properly addressed to the trial court by way of motion in limine.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC677779 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: 29
Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al. BC677779
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Three is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.
Before a hearing may be held on a motion to compel further response to written discovery, the moving party must seek an Informal Discovery Conference with the court. Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/18. The court’s file does not indicate that the Plaintiff requested or that the parties participated in an IDC prior to the hearing date. The Court thus declines to hear the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC677779 Hearing Date: December 09, 2019 Dept: 2
Ocon v. City of Santa Clara et al.
Plaintiffs’ Three Motions to Compel Responses to
Supplemental Interrogatory, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set Three; and Request
for Production of Documents, Set Two are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three is
CONTINUED to January 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to the Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Central
District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/2018, the “parties must participate in an
[informal discovery conference] before a motion to compel further responses to
discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of
declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an
IDC.” Id. ¶13. “If parties do not
stipulate to extend the deadlines, the moving party may file the motion to
avoid it being deemed untimely. However,
the IDC must take place before the motion is heard . . . .” Here, the Court file does not reflect that an
IDC was ever held, and the moving party has not submitted a declaration
establishing that the opposing party failed or refused to participate in an
IDC. The Court continues the motion so
that an IDC may be held before the motion is heard. The moving party is to schedule an IDC
forthwith, and, if there are no available dates for an IDC prior to the new
hearing date, the moving party is to continue the hearing to a date after the
IDC.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.