This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 01:15:17 (UTC).

ARSEN GEVORGYAN VS ELENA JANET AREVALO PANIAGUA

Case Summary

On 02/01/2018 ARSEN GEVORGYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ELENA JANET AREVALO PANIAGUA. 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:

    ****2630

  • Filing Date:

    02/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

GEVORGYAN ARSEN

ARSEN GEVORGYAN

Defendants and Respondents

PANIAGUA ELENA JANET AREVALO

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

PILIKYAN MARINA ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

ANDERSON EDOR G. III ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Firm Name

1/31/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

5/22/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND FOR MONE

4/17/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND FOR MONE

SEPARATE DISCOVERY STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURAN

4/17/2018: SEPARATE DISCOVERY STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURAN

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3/29/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

3/29/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

2/1/2018: SUMMONS

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

2/1/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 01-21-20 Trial: 01-31-20); Filed by Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST EDOR G. ANDERSON AND RAFFALOW, B

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • SEPARATE DISCOVERY STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST EDOR G. A

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Motion to Quash

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gevorgyan Arsen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gevorgyan Arsen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Gevorgyan Arsen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692630    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

arsen gevorgyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

elena janet arevalo paniagua,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC692630

Hearing Date: July 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to augment Expert witness list and To Reopen discovery

Background

Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Elena Janey Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendant moves to augment her expert witness designation, and to reopen discovery. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted in part and denied in part.

Legal Standard

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610, subdivision (a), “On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to do either or both of the following: [¶] (1) Augment that party’s expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a)(1).)

In ruling on a motion to augment an expert witness designation, the court must take into account “the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses . . . ,” and must determine that the opposing party “will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (a)-(b).) Additionally, the court must determine that “[t]he moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that witness . . . ,” or that “[t]he moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: [¶] Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. [¶] Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (c).) Finally, the moving party must “mak[e] the expert available immediately for a deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (d).) The court may also condition leave to amend on any other term the court deems just. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant represents as follows:

- Defendant initially designated a radiologist. Plaintiff initially designated a radiologist,

an ankle and foot specialist, an orthopedist, and a pain specialist.

- Plaintiff made his initial designation on December 12, 2019, meaning that Defendant’s deadline to designate supplemental experts was on January 1, 2020.

- Defendant’s current counsel assumed responsibility for the case on December 28, 2019.

- Defendant’s current counsel did not receive the file until January 6, 2020.

- Defendant’s former counsel did not designate supplemental experts before current counsel assumed responsibility for the case.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the failure to designate supplemental experts was based upon mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. The Court also finds that it is necessary for Defendant to call these experts in order to present a defense at trial and that there is no undue prejudice to Plaintiff. In fact, there is ample opportunity to complete the related discovery before trial. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and authorizes Defendant to supplement her expert witness designations.

The Court also grants in part and denies in part the motion to reopen discovery. Defendant is entitled to conduct one medical examination of Plaintiff and the Court reopens discovery only for that purpose. To the extent Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to undergo more than one independent medical examination, Defendant must obtain leave of court by way of a separate motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) The Court may not authorize more than one examination in this case, because Defendant first appeared in this action on March 29, 2018, and thus had 21 months in which to take independent medical examinations of Plaintiff prior to the close of discovery.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion to augment her expert witness list is granted. Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery for the purpose of conducting medical examinations of Plaintiff is granted in part and denied in part. The Court authorizes one medical examination of Plaintiff. Defendant must file a separate motion in order to obtain more than one examination. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 21, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC692630    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

arsen gevorgyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

elena janet arevalo paniagua,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC692630

Hearing Date: March 13, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to augment Expert witness list

Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Elena Janey Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”). Defendant moves to augment her expert witness designation. Defendant also seeks an order authorizing the new expert witnesses to examine Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendant’s counsel have filed supplemental declarations after Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court may not consider new evidence without affording Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion, as well as the final status conference and trial setting conference, to March 19, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff may file a response to the declarations on or before March 17, 2020. Plaintiff is ordered to bring courtesy copies of any response to the hearing on this motion. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: March 13, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC692630    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

arsen gevorgyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

elena janet arevalo paniagua,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC692630

Hearing Date: February 25, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to augment Expert witness list

Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Elena Janey Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to augment her expert witness designation, which Plaintiff opposes.

Defendant makes a series of representations in the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion. However, there is no evidentiary support for these representations. For example, Defendant represents that attorney error was the reason experts were not timely designated, but the declaration of Drew Helms does not contain any support for these representations. Likewise, to the extent Defendant seeks to re-open discovery to permit independent medical examinations of Plaintiff, Counsel’s declaration is not sufficient to support the motion.

Therefore, the Court continues the motion and trial setting conference to March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court also continues the Final Status Conference to March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court grants Defendant leave to file a supplemental declaration in support of the motion on or before March 2, 2020. Plaintiff may file a response to any supplemental declaration on or before March 9, 2020.

The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: February 24, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC692630    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

arsen gevorgyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

elena janet arevalo raniagua,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC692630

Hearing Date: November 14, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’s motion for order compelling defendant to produce documents

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”) to produce photographs of damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision. Defendant does not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, if a deponent fails to produce any document or electronically stored information under the deponent’s control, which is specified in the deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move to compel the deponent to produce the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff took Defendant’s deposition on August 1, 2019. In the deposition notice, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce any photographs related to the underlying collision. (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #1.) Defendant testified at her deposition that she had photos of the damage to the vehicles as a result of the underlying collision that she did not bring with her to the deposition. (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #2.) The parties agreed that Defendant would email those photos to her counsel, and that Defendant’s counsel would produce the photos to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Defendant produced the photos, but they were in black-and-white and condensed in size. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. #3.) This production is not sufficient because Plaintiff specified that Defendant should produce “original color digital images . . . .” (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #1.) Further, Defendant did not include a verification, which was necessary because the photos were not produced at the deposition (i.e., when Defendant herself could have verified them under oath on the record). The motion is therefore granted.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450(g)(1) and 2023.030(a) because Defendant failed to produce the photographs as required by a deposition subpoena, constituting an abuse of the discovery process. Indeed, this motion was necessitated by Defendant’s gamesmanship. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $810, based upon three hours of attorney time at $250 per hour plus a filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce photographs of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision is granted. Defendant shall produce all photos in her possession, custody or control of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision their original digital format within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant is also to produce a statement, under oath, that the photos are the only photos of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision in her possession.

Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the amount of $810 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 14, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ANDERSON EDOR G. III ESQ.