Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 04:30:09 (UTC).

DAVID FALZONE ET AL VS LEAH SMOLYANSKY

Case Summary

On 08/04/2017 DAVID FALZONE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LEAH SMOLYANSKY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1121

  • Filing Date:

    08/04/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MYERS JENNIFER

FALZON DAVID

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

SMOLYANSKY LEAH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BREITER BRIAN J.

BREITER BRIAN JAMES

Defendant Attorney

SULLIVAN PAUL FRANCIS

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/18/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

1/18/2019: Stipulation and Order

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

3/13/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

DEFENDANT LEAH SMOLYANSKY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/25/2017: DEFENDANT LEAH SMOLYANSKY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

8/14/2017: DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by LEAH SMOLYANSKY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL); Filed by LEAH SMOLYANSKY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • DEFENDANT LEAH SMOLYANSKY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671121    Hearing Date: April 1, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel a Second Deposition

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

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiffs David Falzone (“Plaintiff Falzone”) and Jennifer Myers (“Plaintiff Myers”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Leah Smolyansky (“Defendant”).  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on March 23, 2016.

On February 22, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff Falzone pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610.

Trial is set for May 4, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Falzone to appear for a second deposition within twenty one days from this hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 provides, as follows:

(a) Once any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken.

(c) This section does not preclude taking one subsequent deposition of a natural person who has previously been examined under either or both of the following circumstances:

(1) The person was examined as a result of that person’s designation to testify on behalf of an organization under Section 2025.230.

(2) The person was examined pursuant to a court order under Section 485.230, for the limited purpose of discovering pursuant to Section 485.230 the identity, location, and value of property in which the deponent has an interest.

(d) This section does not authorize the taking of more than one subsequent deposition for the limited purpose of Section 485.230.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues there is good cause to take Plaintiff Falzone’s second deposition because Plaintiff’s damages have increased from several thousand to three million dollars after Plaintiff Falzone’s first deposition, which was taken on April 16, 2018.  (Motion, p. 4:17-4:24; Sullivan Decl., ¶ 2-3, Exh. A.)  Defendant proposes the second deposition to be limited to questions pertaining to Plaintiff’s damages and last a maximum of two hours.  (Motion, p. 5:14-5:16.)  

Plaintiff Falzone argues that he has never demanded less than six figures.  (Twomey Decl., 8.)  Plaintiff Falzone’s symptoms have not changed from his discovery responses or deposition, they have only continued.  (Twomey Decl., ¶ 7.)  Since Plaintiff Falzone’s initial deposition, he has undergone physical and vision therapy, which are the same therapies he performed before his deposition.  (Twomey Decl., 6.)  Plaintiff has consulted a second neurologist who ordered a brain MRI and brain fMRI.  (Ibid.The reports of these exams and imaging studies have been provided to Defendant and Defendant deposed the second neurologist.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Defendant has offered no evidence of good cause to grant the motion.  Plaintiff’s damages have increased as a result of treatment Defendant has already been apprised of.  Defendant makes no showing that supplemental discovery requests won’t address his concerns.  Moreover, trial is just over a month away.  There is insufficient time for a deposition to be conducted and a transcript to be generated and properly incorporated into trial-related materials.  Therefore, the Court finds the motion is properly denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SULLIVAN PAUL F.