On 08/11/2020 CLEMENTE MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against C W DRIVER, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
EDWARD B. MORETON
NELSON STEVEN STEWART
HUGHES AARON MICHAEL
COTA NOLAN ANTHONY
HUGHES AARON MICHAEL
GREEN HAROLD WAYNE
ZIPPE KENT D.
5/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER)
12/31/2020: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
12/2/2020: Proof of Personal Service
12/2/2020: Motion for Protective Order
12/2/2020: Proof of Personal Service
11/13/2020: Proof of Personal Service
10/26/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS COMPLAINT
10/14/2020: Summons - SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT
9/2/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
8/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE
8/21/2020: PI General Order
8/11/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
Hearing08/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/25/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication for Determination of Good Faith Settlement; Filed by Nolan Anthony Cota (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Nolan Anthony Cota (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Steven Stewart Nelson (Cross-Defendant); C.W. Driver, LLC Erroneously Sued As C.W.Driver, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Protective Order; Filed by C.W. Driver, LLC Erroneously Sued As C.W.Driver, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Aaron Michael Hughes (Cross-Complainant); Kirkley Corporation (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by C.W. Driver, LLC Erroneously Sued As C.W.Driver, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by C.W. Driver, LLC Erroneously Sued As C.W.Driver, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (Cross-Complaint); Filed by C.W. Driver, LLC Erroneously Sued As C.W.Driver, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Kirkley Corporation (Defendant); Aaron Michael Hughes (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clemente Martinez-Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clemente Martinez-Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPI General Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Clemente Martinez-Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 20STCV30299 Hearing Date: May 14, 2021 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
C.W. DRIVER, INC., et al.,
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT C.W. DRIVER, LLC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Introduction and Procedural Background
On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff Clemente Martinez-Gonzalez filed this action against C.W. Driver, LLC (“C.W. Driver”) (erroneously sued as “C.W. Driver, Inc.”), Steven Stewart Nelson (“Nelson”), Kirkley Corporation (“Kirkley”), and Aaron Michael Hughes (“Hughes”) arising from a June 26, 2019 motor vehicle collision.
On October 14, 2020, C.W. Driver filed a cross-complaint against Hughes, Kirkley, and Nolan Anthony Cota (“Cota”) for contribution, indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault. On October 26, 2020, Kirkley and Hughes filed a cross-complaint against C.W. Driver, Nelson, and Cota.
Motion for Protective Order
On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition of Dr. Vu Le scheduled for December 4, 2020. (Def.’s Ex. C.) C.W. Driver, Inc. and Nelson (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this Motion for a protective order on December 2, 2020 after Plaintiff’s counsel refused to take the deposition off-calendar. Defendants contend that deposing Dr. Le at this time would be unfairly prejudicial because Defendants have not yet had a reasonable opportunity to obtain Plaintiff’s records from Dr. Le and other treating physicians. Furthermore, defense counsel states that they are unavailable on December 4, 2020.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.420, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420,¿subd. (a).)¿ “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”¿ (Id., § 2025.420,¿subd. (b).)¿ “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020.)¿¿¿
The Court notes that the Notice of Deposition is insufficient to compel Dr. Le’s attendance at a deposition and that it was not served on Dr. Le. Nevertheless, the Court also recognizes that Dr. Le is being produced as Plaintiff’s witness and therefore, there is no anticipated reason Dr. Le’s attendance would need to be compelled. However, because there is no subpoena, it is unclear whether Dr. Le is being produced as an expert witness or as a percipient expert/fact witness. If Dr. Le is being produced as the former, such expert discovery seems to be premature.
Defendants argues that they have not had an opportunity to secure and review Plaintiff’s medical records before the incident and that allowing the deposition would leave them at a disadvantage because they would not be able to meaningfully question Dr. Le. However, at the time the Motion was filed, Defendants had only appeared in the action two months earlier on October 14, 2020. This Motion is now being heard seven months after Defendants made its appearance. Without additional information, Defendant’s contention that it has not had time to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records is unpersuasive at this point.
Furthermore, Defendant’s Motion for a protective order is too vague. The Notice of Motion requests that the deposition be rescheduled to a new date and time that allows Defendant the “reasonable opportunity and ability” to obtain the relevant records necessary to permit Defendants to adequately prepare for and meaningfully participate in the deposition. The Court does not know whether Defendants have served subpoenas on Plaintiff’s medical providers, how many providers they are waiting on, or when production of those records is expected. It is impossible for the Court to determine what a “reasonable opportunity” is without such information from Defendants.
Defendant’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.
14th day of May 2021
Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases