This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2019 at 01:22:15 (UTC).

AMANDA CAMERON VS GEORGE LEONARD HOLLOWAY

Case Summary

On 04/10/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by AMANDA CAMERON against GEORGE LEONARD HOLLOWAY in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1110

  • Filing Date:

    04/10/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

CAMERON AMANDA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 15

HOLLOWAY GEORGE LEONARD

 

Court Documents

CIVIL DEPOSIT

4/18/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/19/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

4/10/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/10/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/19/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by George Leonard Holloway (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Answer; Filed by George Leonard Holloway (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Amanda Cameron (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701110    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 2

Cameron v. Holloway

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Dr. Niveen Abdelmessih to Produce Plaintiff’s Health Records, or alternatively, for a Protective Order; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

1) The court may quash a subpoena to protect the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.

On 10/24/19, Defendant served a Notice of Deposition and issued a subpoena to Niveen Abdelmessi, M.D., requiring his appearance at a deposition on 11/19/19 and to produce “any and all records” pertaining to Plaintiff, Amanda Dolores Cameron, without limitation in scope or time.

The subpoena appears moot since Defendant advised that the deposition would not proceed and the subpoena as sent was withdrawn. Defendant agreed to limit the subpoena to the body parts Plaintiff specifically injured in the accident that is the subject of this action as Plaintiff requested. Motion, Ex. 2.

Accordingly, the motion is rendered moot. There is no subpoena with request for documents presently at issue. Defendant agreed to send another amended subpoena. Motion, Ex. 2, email dated 11/11/19 from defense counsel, Michael J. Lowell.

2) Plaintiff is generally correct that the right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.

Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendant is required to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.

There is an implicit waiver of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights encompassing discovery directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

The scope of the permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which the Plaintiff has brought to the court. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.

As discussed above, Defendant agreed to reissue the subpoena with limiting language. There no basis for quashing a withdrawn subpoena or for a protective order to limit language that Defendant already agreed to limit.

3) The location of the deposition of the deponent, whether or not a party, is required to be within 75 miles of the deponent’s residence, or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent’s residence, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2025.250.

There is no evidence of Dr. Abdelmessih’s residence or that the location of the deposition falls outside the parameters of § 2025.250.

4) The court awards Defendant fees and costs incurred in making the motion totaling $600 against Plaintiff, Amanda Cameron, and her counsel, Kazanjian Law, as Plaintiff has not shown substantial justification for making the motion. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.2.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.