This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2020 at 09:51:17 (UTC).

AUTUMN DAVIDSON VS RACHEL RAZI ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/03/2018 AUTUMN DAVIDSON filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RACHEL RAZI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4727

  • Filing Date:

    05/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DAVIDSON AUTUMN

Defendants and Respondents

RAZI RACHEL

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

RAZI IRIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WEINSTEIN ROBERT S. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

JAVID LAILY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/16/2020

3/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/16/2020

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE JAMES BUFORD, CSR #9296

3/4/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE JAMES BUFORD, CSR #9296

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SERVE RESPONSES TO ...)

3/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SERVE RESPONSES TO ...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN

2/26/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/26/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Association of Attorney

2/13/2020: Association of Attorney

Motion to Continue Trial Date

12/9/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

12/18/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

9/17/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANTS, RACHEL RAZI AND IRIS RAZI'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF, AUTUM DAVIDSON TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PORDUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FO

7/11/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANTS, RACHEL RAZI AND IRIS RAZI'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF, AUTUM DAVIDSON TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PORDUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FO

Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED; C.C.P. 203.010 ET.SEQ.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.00; MEMORA

7/11/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED; C.C.P. 203.010 ET.SEQ.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.00; MEMORA

Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF LAILL

7/11/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF LAILL

Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPLELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTJHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF

7/11/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPLELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTJHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/13/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Answer

3/13/2019: Answer

SUMMONS -

5/3/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE

5/3/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/08/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Autumn Davidson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2020
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL (Minute Order 3-16-20); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • Docketat 3:17 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketMotion in Limine (2020-03-10 MIL No 1- Filed and Served.pdf); Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (DEFENDANTS, RACHEL RAZI AND IRIS RAZI'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF, AUTUM DAVIDSON TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PORDUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES); Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPLELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTJHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF LAILY JAVID IN SUPPORT THEREOF; PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED; C.C.P. 203.010 et.seq.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION); Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF LAILLY JAVID IN SUPPORT THEREOF; PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Rachel Razi (Defendant); Iris Razi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Autumn Davidson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC704727    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses 

Opposed: Yes

Proposed Ruling: DENY as moot

Special Issues: None

Law Clerk: Joseph Scott, Ext. 0183

Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Autumn Davidson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rachel Razi and Iris Razi (“Defendants”) on May 3, 2018, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. This action arises from allegations of negligence pertaining to a May 10, 2016, automobile collision. 

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendants move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serves responses to the Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and to the Supplemental Interrogatories served on Plaintiff on November 8, 2019. Defendants move for sanctions in the amount of $461.65 for each motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.070(a), “[i]n addition to the number of interrogatories permitted by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . ., (b)¿The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.050(a), “[i]n addition to the¿demands¿for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling¿permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample¿any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things,¿land or other property, or electronically stored information¿in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . ., (b)¿The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.

DISCUSSION

Counsel for Defendants caused to be served on Plaintiff supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents on November 8, 2019. (Brockenbrow Decls. ¶ 3.) Counsel declares that as of the date of this declaration, January 21, 2020, she had received no response. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

On February 26, 2020, four court days before the hearing in this matter, Plaintiff opposed the present motions. Plaintiff argues that Defendant was timely served with verified responses as Plaintiff was granted additional time to respond.

Counsel for Plaintiff, Robert S. Weinstein, attaches as Exhibit B Plaintiff’s responses to the supplemental interrogatories and requests for production. The proof of service for both documents reflects that service was effected by mail on December 24, 2019. (Weinstein Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff appears to argue that the December 24, 2019, were timely. In support of this argument, Weinstein attaches a December 16, 2019, letter from Defense counsel, in which she states that 

[o]ur file reflects that answers to supplemental discovery propounded to your client by this office on December 13, 2019, are overdue. No extension was requested, and no extension was granted. Therefore, your clients have waived the right to object to the questions. This letter is intended as an attempt to resolve the matter informally. If we do not receive discovery responses within the next ten (10) days from the date of this letter..

(Id. Exh. A.)

Although this letter may have provided Plaintiff with a 10-day grace period to provide responses to avoid the need for the present motion to compel, it did not render the December 24, 2019, responses timely.

Thus, the evidence before the Court show that Plaintiff served untimely responses to the supplemental interrogatories and requests for production on December 24, 2019. A review of the responses reveals that there is “[n]o change” in Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ requests for production, and a single supplemental response to the interrogatories. (Id. Exh. B.) Therefore, Defendants’ argument as to waiver of objections is moot. 

Defendants moved to compel responses on January 22, 2020,twenty-nine days after service of the responses by mail. As Plaintiff had provided responses before Defendants filed the present motion, the motion is in substance moot.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for Production is DENIED as moot. 

Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Autumn Davidson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rachel Razi and Iris Razi (“Defendants”) on May 3, 2018, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. This action arises from allegations of negligence pertaining to a May 10, 2016, automobile collision. 

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendants move for an order continuing the April 3, 2020, by six months. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) 

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that similar to her opposing papers in the concurrently heard discovery motions, Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely as it was filed only 4 court days before this hearing. 

Defendants contend that it is necessary to continue the April 3, 2020, trial date in this matter because there have been multiple delays in obtaining Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination. Defendants summarily argue that “plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond to written discovery and motions to compel have been filed and are pending before the court. If the continuance is not granted, Defendants would be at a severe disadvantage and suffer irreparable harm.” (Motion 5:2-5.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff recites in length the law pertaining to trial continuance, and argues that “Defense counsel had one continuance and had ample time to complete discovery prior to and/or subsequent to the CMC date.” (Opp. 7:10-11.)  Plaintiff does not address Defendants’ argument pertaining to the IME, and concludes that Defendants have had sufficient time to conduct discovery in light of prior trial continuances and have provided no good cause for another. 

Defense counsel Karen Brockenbrow declares that “additional time is needed to obtain medical records as there were multiple unidentified doctors received in Plaintiffs discovery responses,” and that “Plaintiffs counsel has previously stipulated to two continuances and I do not anticipate any opposition to the requested continuance.” (Brackenbrow Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Thus, it appears that Defendants have obtained Plaintiff’s IME. Furthermore, the referenced “further motions to compel responses to written discovery are pending due to plaintiff’s failure to timely respond,” set for hearing concurrently with this motion, are moot as Defendant served (untimely) responses on December 24, 2019.  Without further specificity, the Court shall not grant a continuance of the trial in this matter. 

The trial in this action has now been continued twice, and the grounds for Defendants’ request can be reduced to needing additional time to “obtain medical records as there were multiple identified doctors received in Plaintiff’s discovery responses.” Plaintiff fails to specify in the motion or the accompanying declaration which discovery responses are at issue, nor the dates on which they were received. 

Defendants have not shown good cause for another trial continuance. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.