Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 10:26:44 (UTC).

DELINIA R PINZON ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/26/2017 DELINIA R PINZON filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8152

  • Filing Date:

    12/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PINZON ANADEL R.

PINZON JOSEPH BENJAMIN

SANTOS IRENE PINZON

PINZON DELINIA

Defendants and Respondents

ROCHON-DUCK MICHAEL M.D.

NAKAMARA MAMOO M.D.

CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

WANG XUNZHANG M.D.

HUGH SUMEET M.D.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES

NAKAMURA M.D. MAMOO

ST. JUDE MEDICAL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DENOVE JOHN F. ESQ.

DENOVE JOHN FAIRLEIGH ESQ.

CURRAN ALICIA SARAH

Defendant Attorneys

GONZALEZ MICHAEL DALE ESQ.

HALL LORRAINE KIM

SUNG NATASHA ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Declaration

5/15/2018: Declaration

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

5/16/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/1/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

STIPULATION RE AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AND NEW RESPONSE DATE; ORDER

6/7/2018: STIPULATION RE AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AND NEW RESPONSE DATE; ORDER

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AND NEW RESPONSE DATE

6/15/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AND NEW RESPONSE DATE

NOTICE OF CASE TRANSFER

6/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE TRANSFER

DECLARATION OF DELINIA PINZON PURSUANT TO SECTION 377.32 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

7/2/2018: DECLARATION OF DELINIA PINZON PURSUANT TO SECTION 377.32 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Unknown

7/13/2018: Unknown

Unknown

7/17/2018: Unknown

Unknown

8/3/2018: Unknown

DEFENDANTS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/21/2018: DEFENDANTS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/13/2019: Unknown

Unknown

3/15/2019: Unknown

Reply

4/29/2019: Reply

Status Report

5/17/2019: Status Report

SUMMONS

12/26/2017: SUMMONS

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Status Report; Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff); Anadel R. Pinzon (Plaintiff); Irene Pinzon Santos (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Notice ( OF ORDER RE DEFENDANT ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES? MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS? FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS); Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff); Anadel R. Pinzon (Plaintiff); Irene Pinzon Santos (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Order (re St. Jude Medical, LLC and Abbott Laboratories' Motion to Compel)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by St. Jude Medical, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
99 More Docket Entries
  • 04/16/2018
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff); Anadel R. Pinzon (Plaintiff); Irene Pinzon Santos (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff); Anadel R. Pinzon (Plaintiff); Irene Pinzon Santos (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Delinia Pinzon (Plaintiff); Anadel R. Pinzon (Plaintiff); Irene Pinzon Santos (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688152    Hearing Date: October 29, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

delinia r. pinzon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

cedars-sinai medical center, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688152

Hearing Date:

October 29, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES’ MOTION TO SEAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;

DEFENDANTS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES’ MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT;

DEFENDANTS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, SUMEET CHUGH, M.D., AND XUNZHANG WANG, M.D.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT;

DEFENDANTS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES’ MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiffs Delinia R. Pinzon, Anadel R. Pinzon, Irene Pinzon Santos, and Joseph Benjamin Pinzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 26, 2017 following the death of Anastacio Pinzon (“Decedent”) after heart surgery. Plaintiffs assert medical malpractice claims against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”), Dr. Sumeet Chugh, and Dr. Xunzhang Wang (collectively, the “CSMC Parties”), as well as product liability claims against Defendants Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical, LLC (jointly, the “St. Jude Parties”).

On February 21, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for summary judgment.

On April 3, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort.

On April 14, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement, indicating that the St. Jude Parties had settled with Plaintiffs for a confidential sum.

On April 20, 2020, notwithstanding that the CSMC parties had already filed their cross-complaint, the CSMC Parties filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Subsequently, on May 5, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion to strike the CSMC Parties’ cross-complaint as improperly filed without leave of court.

On August 13, 2020, the Court issued an order granting CSMC’s motion to compel the deposition of the St. Jude Parties’ person most qualified, as well as other individuals affiliated with the St. Jude Parties. The Court ordered that the depositions take place no later than September 30, 2020. Evidently, the depositions have been completed, and the parties have submitted revised briefing with regard to the motion for determination of good faith settlement to include evidence elicited from those depositions.

The Court now considers the St. Jude Parties’ motion to determine good faith determination, the St. Jude Parties’ motion to seal the settlement agreement reached between Plaintiffs and the St. Jude Parties, the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint to assert claims for indemnification, failure to warn, and intentional failure to warn, and the St. Jude Parties’ motion to strike the CSMC Parties’ already-filed Cross-Complaint. Other than the motion to seal and the motion to strike, the motions are all opposed.

Motion to Seal

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

The St. Jude Parties seek to file the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) under seal because the Settlement Agreement contains a confidentiality provision barring the disclosure of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A “contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule [2.550 (formerly 243.10(d))].” ((Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) The Court also finds that the overriding interest of the parties’ to adhere to their contractual obligation supports sealing the Settlement Agreement, and that a substantial probability exists that the interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The proposed sealing is “narrowly tailored” insofar as the entire Settlement Agreement is subject to the confidentiality provision. Further, as noted by the St. Jude Parties, there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. Therefore, the Court finds that there is good cause to seal the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e), the Court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the record ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the record as sealed by this order.

The Court declines to order any sealing of the register of actions, any other court records, or any other records relating to this case. The Court further orders that no persons other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.

Motion for Good Faith Determination of Settlement

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants the St. Jude Parties’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 3-7. The Court denies the St. Jude Parties’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1, 2, and 8 to the extent that the request is an attempt to incorporate the arguments contained in Exhibits 1, 2, and 8 into the St. Jude Parties’ reply brief. The Court overrules the CSMC parties’ objection to the St. Jude Parties’ request for judicial notice.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors.” “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” ((Id., § 877.6, subd. (d).) Furthermore, “[a] determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” ((Id., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” ((Ibid. ) If the party contesting the settlement can show, with admissible evidence, that the settlement is “so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the above-referenced factors] as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute,” then the court should find the settlement to be lacking in good faith. ((Id. at pp. 499-500.) “The ultimate determinant of good faith is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor’s liability to be.” ((City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262.) In order to make a determination of good faith, substantial evidence showing the nature and extent of the settling defendant’s liability is required. ((Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350.)

The St. Jude Parties contend that their settlement with Plaintiffs is fair and reasonable in light of the allegations in the case, the proportionate liability of the St. Jude Parties, and the substantive legal defenses available to the St. Jude Parties.

Plaintiffs allege that on July 15, 2017, Anastacio C. Pinzon (“Decedent”) underwent a heart surgery procedure which was performed using a device believed to be a Swartz sheath manufactured by the St. Jude Parties. (SAC, ¶ 21.) During the procedure, an air embolism developed in Decedent, which ultimate led to his subsequent death. (SAC, ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs allege that the sheath (called a “Fast-Cath”) was defectively designed and manufactured. (SAC, ¶ 23.) Plaintiffs also allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn the medical community and the public of the risks of the use of the Fast-Cath, including the likelihood of the introduction of air/air seepage when the Fast-Cath was used in connection with the guidewire component used on Decedent. (SAC, ¶ 27.)

The St. Jude Parties contend that Plaintiffs will not be able to establish that the St. Jude Parties are liable for Decedent’s injuries because there is no evidence of any flaw in the Fast-Cath, there is no evidence of a manufacturing defect, there is no evidence of a design defect, the St. Jude Parties properly warned of the risk of air embolism, and Plaintiffs cannot establish causation for any failure to warn claim (because the electrophysiologist who performed the procedure did not read the Fast-Cath warnings provided by the St. Jude Parties). The St. Jude Parties argue that therefore, their settlement with Plaintiffs is within the reasonable range of its proportional share of comparative liability because the St. Jude Parties have no liability. The St. Jude Parties also assert that the decision to settle was based on an arm’s length agreement between counsel.

In opposition, the CSMC Parties argue that the motion should be denied because the St. Jude Parties failed to provide any evidence in support of the motion. But as noted above, the burden of proof on a good faith determination is on the party attacking the settlement. Therefore, the St. Jude Parties were not required to present any evidence in their moving papers. ((Id. at p. 1350, fn. 6 [“Therefore, in bringing the motion for good faith settlement, Helmer & Neff were not compelled to make a showing as to their proportionate liability”].)

Next, to meet their burden of proof, the CSMC Parties contend that the St. Jude Parties have significant exposure to liability and indemnification which far exceeds their settlement amount. The CSMC Parties submit the following evidence to demonstrate that they were not made aware of (and were not warned about) any minimum guidewire size restrictions associated with the Fast-Cath until after Decedent’s surgery.

The CSMC Parties contend that Plaintiffs are claiming over $5 million in economic damages, in addition to non-economic damages. (Vazquez Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. I [Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damages].) The CSMC Parties contend that the St. Jude Parties’ settlement is equivalent to 0.5% of Plaintiffs’ economic damages, which the CSMC Parties argue is far out of the ballpark of the St. Jude Parties’ proportional liability, which the CSMC Parties estimate to be 100%. The CSMC Parties further argue that the evidence concerning the CSMC Parties’ lack of awareness of the minimum guidewire size restrictions was known to the St. Jude Parties at the time of their settlement. The CSMC Parties filed and served their cross-complaint against the St. Jude Parties on April 3, 2020, prior to the settlement, and the cross-complaint made the parties aware of the basis for the CSMC Parties’ claims for indemnity against the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also provided a copy of their expert’s signed declaration in opposition to the St. Jude Parties’ MSJ prior to the settlement being reached. (Vazquez Decl., ¶ 23, Ex. Q [email dated April 10, 2020 to counsel for the St. Jude Parties attaching a copy of the expert declaration in support of the CSMC Parties’ opposition to the MSJ]; ¶ 24, Ex. R [email dated April 13, 2020 from counsel for the St. Jude Parties to counsel for the CSMC Parties notifying them of the settlement with Plaintiffs].)

Next, the CSMC Parties argue that the other good faith considerations militate against a finding of good faith. The CSMC Parties argue that there is no evidence that the St. Jude Parties’ financial condition or insurance policy limits support the amount of the settlement. The CSMC Parties contend that the St. Jude Parties have resources to assume more accountability for the damages claimed. (Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 20-21, Exs. N-O.) Lastly, the CSMC Parties argue that the Release in the Settlement Agreement is overbroad because it includes all claims that could be brought against the St. Jude Parties for indemnification.

The St. Jude Parties counter that their settlement with Plaintiffs was based on an accurate and realistic assessment of the St. Jude Parties’ potential liability, and the parties agreed independently that the settlement valuation was reasonable. The St. Jude Parties argue that the CSMC Parties’ valuation of liability is improperly based on Plaintiffs’ claimed damages, when instead, evidence must be provided so that a court can “determine a ‘rough approximation’ of what the plaintiff would actually recover if the case should go to trial.” ((Horton v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 727, 735.) The CSMC Parties did not offer any evidence of what Plaintiffs would actually have recovered if the case went to trial. In contrast, the St. Jude Parties offer evidence that Plaintiffs’ claim of $5 million in economic damages was inflated because Decedent had a limited work life expectancy due to his poor health and advanced age of 69, and that his yearly earnings from 2015 until 2017 was less than $60,000. (Sung Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A; ¶ 3, Ex. B.)

Moreover, the St. Jude Parties contend that the evidence does not support a finding that the St. Jude Parties were 100% liable for Decedent’s injuries because Decedent’s surgeon, Dr. Wang, did not read the Fast-Cath IFU before the surgery, and so any alleged deficiencies in the St. Jude Parties’ warnings could not have changed Dr. Wang’s conduct during the surgery. (Sung Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C, pp. 79:4-19, 133:9-22, 134:1-4.) The St. Jude Parties also point out that the IFU instructs surgeons to use a 0.032-inch guidewire with the introducer. In addition to stating that the “introducer is also compatible with a .032” guidewire” the IFU also instructs surgeons to “[o]btain the following items: …. One 0.032”, 150-180 cm guidewire” and when advancing the Fast-Cath into the heart, to “[i]ntroduce a 0.032 inch, 150-180 centimeter, 3 mm “J” tip guidewire into the superior vena cava.” (St. Jude Parties’ RFJN, Ex. 7, Ex. J, SJM000002-000003.) The St. Jude Parties also discount the CSMC Parties’ reliance on Greg Busta’s email to Dr. Wang after the surgery. In this email, Mr. Busta states that the Fast-Cath valve can provide hemostasis with guidewires down to 0.028 inch. (Sung Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C, Ex. 4.) The St. Jude Parties argue that this information is irrelevant because the Fast-Cath IFU explicitly instructed the use of 0.032-inch guidewires.

Based on the evidence and argument presented, the Court finds that the settlement is not grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor’s liability to be. The Court finds that there was insufficient evidence to show that Decedent’s injuries were 100% the fault of the St. Jude Parties, and that the settlement is far out of the ballpark of the St. Jude Parties’ potential proportional liability. The Court finds that the St. Jude Parties have introduced evidence showing that their potential liability is likely to be much lower than 100%. Furthermore, the Court does not find that there is evidence of any collusive or fraudulent conduct by the settling parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement between the St. Jude Parties and Plaintiffs was made in good faith.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the St. Jude Parties’ motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.

In light of the granting of the St. Jude Parties’ motion, the Court denies the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Court strikes the Cross-Complaint filed by the CSMC Parties on April 20, 2020. The St. Jude Parties’ motion to strike the CSMC Parties’ cross-complaint is thus moot.

The St. Jude Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: October 29, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1] The “Description” section of the IFU states as follows: “The FAST-CATH Transseptal Guiding Introducer set consists of a radiopaque introducer and dilator, each with a specially curved distal portion to accommodate positioning against the atrial septum. The introducer is also compatible with a .032” guidewire and BRK type curved puncture needle. The introducer is fitted with a valve to provide hemostasis during catheter introduction and/or exchange over a guidewire. Located on the valve housing, a sideport with three-way stopcock is provided for aspiration, fluid infusion, blood sampling and pressure monitoring. The dilator is tapered at the distal tip with an internal lumen designed to accept ancillary devices (e.g., needles or guidewires) that have a maximum diameter of 0.032 inches. The dilator inner lumen is also designed with a special geometry at its distal end to limit the exposure of the BRK needle.” (Vazquez Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. F, p. 2 [emphasis added].)

Case Number: BC688152    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

delinia r. pinzon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

cedars-sinai medical center, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688152

Hearing Date:

October 7, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SUBMIT FURTHER BRIEFING ON THE CHALLENGE TO THE GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT APPLICATION

Background

Plaintiffs Delinia R. Pinzon, Anadel R. Pinzon, Irene Pinzon Santos, and Joseph Benjamin Pinzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 26, 2017 following the death of Anastacio Pinzon (“Decedent”) after heart surgery. Plaintiffs assert medical malpractice claims against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”), Dr. Sumeet Chugh, and Dr. Xunzhang Wang (collectively, the “CSMC Parties”), as well as product liability claims against Defendants Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical, LLC (jointly, the “St. Jude Parties”).

On February 21, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for summary judgment.

On April 3, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort.

On April 14, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement, indicating that the St. Jude Parties had settled with Plaintiffs for a confidential sum.

On April 20, 2020, notwithstanding that the CSMC parties had already filed their cross-complaint, the CSMC Parties filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Subsequently, on May 5, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion to strike the CSMC Parties’ cross-complaint as improperly filed without leave of court.

On August 13, 2020, the Court issued an order granting CSMC’s motion to compel the deposition of the St. Jude Parties’ person most qualified, as well as other individuals affiliated with the St. Jude Parties. The Court ordered that the depositions take place no later than September 30, 2020. Evidently, the depositions have been completed.

On August 20, 2020, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and the hearing on the St. Jude Parties’ motion to strike the cross-complaint to October 29, 2020, which is the same date upon which the St. Jude Parties’ motion for determination of good faith settlement is to be heard. By this point, the motion for determination of good faith settlement had been fully briefed.[1]

The CSMC Parties now move for leave to submit further briefing on the good faith settlement motion in light of the depositions and in light of certain evidence proffered by the St. Jude Parties in their reply to the opposition to the motion for determination of good faith settlement.

The St. Jude Parties do not oppose the CSMC Parties’ request to submit additional briefing to address the evidence elicited by the depositions. The St. Jude Parties also request the opportunity to submit a new reply addressing any new argument in the CSMC Parties’ proposed new opposition. The St. Jude Parties also request that any new briefing be limited to a discussion of the three depositions of the St. Jude employees.

Discussion

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the parties an opportunity to file updated briefing in light of the possibility of new evidence elicited by the depositions taken after briefing on the motion to determine good faith settlement was complete. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(3) [“Every court shall have the power to do . . . provide for the order conduct of proceedings before it.”].) Furthermore, in light of the fact that the hearing on the motion to determine good faith settlement has been continued to October 29, 2020, the Court finds that setting opposition and reply briefing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) appropriate. The Court declines to preemptively place any limits on the scope of the opposition or the reply, only to note that any revised briefing shall entirely supplant any previously filed opposition or reply. In other words, if a new opposition or reply is filed, the Court will not consider any previously filed opposition or reply. Although the parties may request that the Court take judicial notice of documents or evidence previously filed, the parties may not use a request for judicial notice as a way to circumvent the page-length requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the CSMC Parties’ motion is granted.

The parties may submit new and revised opposition and reply briefing with respect to the St. Jude Parties’ motion for determination of good faith settlement. The Court orders that any new briefing shall be filed and served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) based on the October 29, 2020 hearing date.

The CSMC Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: October 7, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1] The motion was filed on April 14, 2020. The opposition was filed on April 27, 2020. The reply was filed on May 1, 2020.

Case Number: BC688152    Hearing Date: August 20, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

delinia r. pinzon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

cedars-sinai medical center, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688152

Hearing Date:

August 20, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, SUMEET CHUGH, M.D., AND XUNZHANG WANG, M.D.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiffs Delinia R. Pinzon, Anadel R. Pinzon, Irene Pinzon Santos, and Joseph Benjamin Pinzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 26, 2017 following the death of Anastacio Pinzon (“Decedent”) after heart surgery. Plaintiffs assert medical malpractice claims against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”), Dr. Sumeet Chugh, and Dr. Xunzhang Wang (collectively, the “CSMC Parties”), as well as product liability claims against Defendants Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical, LLC (jointly, the “St. Jude Parties”).

On April 3, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort. Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the CSMC Parties filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The St. Jude Parties then moved to strike the CSMC Parties’ cross-complaint as improperly filed without leave of court.[1] Because of a confluence of events, including the scheduling uncertainty caused by the court’s closure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CSMC Parties applied ex parte for certain relief with regard to various pending motions. On July 14, 2020, the Court issued an order setting various hearing dates, including a date for the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Court noted in the July 14, 2020 minute order that the St. Jude Parties’ motion to strike the cross-complaint would be scheduled for August 20, 2020 but would not be heard on August 20, 2020. The minute order provides that the motion to strike will be set for hearing if the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.

Now, the Court turns to the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Court notes that the St. Jude Parties oppose.

Discussion

Where a defendant wishes to assert a “related cause of action” against plaintiff, it must do so in a cross-complaint. Failure to plead it will bar defendant from asserting it in a later lawsuit. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30); Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10 (“‘Related cause of action’ means a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”).)

A cross-complaint against plaintiff may be filed as a matter of right if it is filed before or at the same time as the answer. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a).) Otherwise, leave of court must be obtained. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 provides the standard for granting leave to amend where a cross-complaint is related to the underlying complaint. That section provides:

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

Courts have interpreted this section to require that a motion to file a cross-complaint be granted at any time during the course of the action unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated. ((Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99 [“Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.”]); (Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718 [a “strong showing of bad faith” is required].)

The CSMC Parties contend that they did not know at the time of filing their answer that they had a claim for indemnity against the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties did not become aware of the potential claim until after the St. Jude Parties’ motion for summary judgment was filed and the CSMC Parties’ subsequent consultations with their experts. The CSMC Parties also argue that they will be unable to effectively oppose both the St. Jude Parties’ motion for summary judgment and the St. Jude Parties’ motion for determination of good faith settlement without a cross-complaint for indemnity on file.[2] The CSMC Parties assert that they have a right to protect their interests and to be indemnified for the St. Jude Parties’ negligence.

The St. Jude Parties argue that the CSMC Parties’ proposed cross-complaint for indemnity does not need to be filed in order for a determination to be made as to whether the St. Jude Parties’ settlement with Plaintiffs was in good faith. The St. Jude Parties contend that allowing leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity would require the St. Jude Parties to litigate this case after a settlement has been reached, which would not promote the policy in favor of settlement as enshrined in Code of Civil Procedure section 877. The St. Jude Parties also argue that there is no explanation for the CSMC Parties’ delay in seeking to file a cross-complaint and that the cross-complaint would be futile in any event. However, the Court notes that the St. Jude Parties do not contend that the CSMC Parties have acted in bad faith in seeking to file the cross-complaint. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the St. Jude Parties that the cross-complaint need not be filed prior to the hearing on the motion for determination of good faith settlement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave is continued to October 29, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 50.

If the motion for determination of good faith settlement, which is also to be heard on October 29, 2020 is granted, then the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint will be rendered moot. However, if the motion for determination of good faith settlement is denied, the Court will grant the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file the cross-complaint. Furthermore, if the CSMC Parties’ motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is granted, then the St. Jude Parties’ motion to strike the cross-complaint will also be rendered moot.

The CSMC Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: August 20, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1] The Court notes that the St. Jude Parties do not move to strike on any other basis.

[2] The CSMC Parties nevertheless assert that they filed the cross-complaint before being notified of any possible settlement between Plaintiffs and the St. Jude Parties. (Hall Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)

Case Number: BC688152    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

delinia r. pinzon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

cedars-sinai medical center, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688152

Hearing Date:

August 13, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, SUMEET CHUGH, M.D., AND XUNZHANG WANG, M.D.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES’ EMPLOYEES’ DEPOSITIONS

Background

Plaintiffs Delinia R. Pinzon, Anadel R. Pinzon, Irene Pinzon Santos, and Joseph Benjamin Pinzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 26, 2017 following the death of Anastacio Pinzon (“Decedent”) after heart surgery. Plaintiffs assert medical malpractice claims against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”), Dr. Sumeet Chugh, and Dr. Xunzhang Wang, as well as product liability claims against Defendants Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical, LLC.

On February 21, 2020, St. Jude Medical, LLC and Abbott Laboratories (jointly, the “St. Jude Parties”) filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 3, 2020, CSMC, Dr. Chugh, and Dr. Wang (collectively, the “CSMC Parties”) filed a cross-complaint against St. Jude Medical, LLC for indemnification, failure to warn, negligence, and intentional tort. On April 14, 2020, the St. Jude Parties filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement, indicating that the St. Jude Parties had settled with Plaintiffs for a confidential sum.

On April 15, 2020, the CSMC Parties served Notices of Deposition for Frank Fraser, Melissa Wappel, and the Person Most Qualified at St. Jude Medical, LLC/Abbott Laboratories. (Hall Decl., ¶¶ 2, 5, Ex. C.) On April 23, 2020, the St. Jude Parties served objections to the deposition notices. (Hall Decl., ¶¶ 2, 6, Ex. D.) After meet and confer efforts, and after participating in an Informal Discovery Conference, the St. Jude Parties have refused to produce their employees for deposition. (Hall Decl., ¶¶ 2, 7-9, Exs. E, F, and G.)

The CSMC Parties now move to compel the St. Jude Parties to produce Frank Fraser, Melissa Wappel, and their Person Most Qualified for deposition. The CSMC Parties also request that these depositions be ordered to take place before the hearing on the St. Jude Parties’ motion for determination of good faith settlement, which is currently scheduled to be heard on September 25, 2020. The St. Jude Parties oppose.

Discussion

Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (\r\n PsychStateSubjectCode\r\n Full.StateStatuteCite\r\n Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.010\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","original_string":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010","error":null,"fullText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.010","isParallel":false,"parallel":null,"start":2540,"end":2566,"pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","readOrderIndex":2540,"index":2540,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":0,"CiteShepSignalLink":null,"story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":null,"name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK1","foundBy":"PsychStateSubjectCode","FullTextParen":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$id":"1","End":3469,"Offset":2428,"Start":0,"nref":0,"nind":0,"story":"wdMainTextStory","namedRanges":[{"$id":"2","Name":"Psych_Cite_1","Range":{"$id":"3","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":112,"_End":138,"_Text":"Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) \rThe product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death. \rIn the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information. \rThe CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper. \rThe CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null},{"$id":"4","Name":"Psych_Cite_2","Range":{"$id":"5","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":455,"_End":481,"_Text":"Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) \rThe product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death. \rIn the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information. \rThe CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper. \rThe CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null},{"$id":"6","Name":"Psych_Cite_3","Range":{"$id":"7","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":697,"_End":735,"_Text":"Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) \rThe product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death. \rIn the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information. \rThe CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper. \rThe CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null},{"$id":"8","Name":"Psych_Cite_4","Range":{"$id":"9","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":914,"_End":955,"_Text":"Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) \rThe product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death. \rIn the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information. \rThe CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper. \rThe CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null}],"Range":{"$id":"10","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":0,"_End":3469,"_Text":"Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) \rThe product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death. \rIn the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information. \rThe CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper. \rThe CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount. \r"}},"master":"___RESULTS_12","kernel_data":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.010 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.010 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.010StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_12"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","CitationRichText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":-1,"Title":"No Analysis","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/blank.jpg","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":null,"ShowShepardSignal":false,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.010","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc. § 2025.010

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.010 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.010 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.010StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_12","Markup":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","Master":"___RESULTS_12","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK1","Original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","PinPage":"","ReadOrderIndex":2540,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2025.010","Start":2540,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2025.010

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","ModifiedCitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"effective%20to%20require%20any%20deponent%20who%20is%20a%20party%20to%20the%20action%20or%20an%20officer,%20director,%20managing%20agent,%20or%20employee%20of%20a%20party%20to%20attend%20and%20to%20testify,%20as%20well%20as%20to%20produce%20any%20document,%20electronically%20stored%20information,%20or%20tangible%20thing%20for%20inspection%20and%20copying."}}}' docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (\r\n PsychStateSubjectCode\r\n Full.StateStatuteCite\r\n Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.280\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","original_string":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280","error":null,"fullText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.280","isParallel":false,"parallel":null,"start":2883,"end":2909,"pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","readOrderIndex":2883,"index":2883,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":0,"CiteShepSignalLink":null,"story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":null,"name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK2","foundBy":"PsychStateSubjectCode","FullTextParen":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$ref":"1"},"master":"___RESULTS_13","kernel_data":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.280 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.280 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.280StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_13"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","CitationRichText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":-1,"Title":"No Analysis","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/blank.jpg","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":null,"ShowShepardSignal":false,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.280","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc. § 2025.280

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.280 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.280 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.280StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_13","Markup":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","Master":"___RESULTS_13","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK2","Original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","PinPage":"","ReadOrderIndex":2884,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2025.280","Start":2884,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2025.280

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280.) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (\r\n PsychStateSubjectCode\r\n Full.StateStatuteCite\r\n Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","error":null,"fullText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480","isParallel":false,"parallel":null,"start":3125,"end":3163,"pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","readOrderIndex":3125,"index":3125,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":0,"CiteShepSignalLink":null,"story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":null,"name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK3","foundBy":"PsychStateSubjectCode","FullTextParen":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$ref":"1"},"master":"___RESULTS_14","kernel_data":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd. (a)StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.480, subd. (a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subdsubd. (a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd._PatternSubdsList.SubdsListStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First(a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First._PatternSubdScalarOrRangeCal.SubdScalarOrRangeCalStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First.First(a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.subdivisionssubdivisionStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.480StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_14"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","CitationRichText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":-1,"Title":"No Analysis","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/blank.jpg","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":null,"ShowShepardSignal":false,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd. (a)StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2025.480, subd. (a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subdsubd. (a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd._PatternSubdsList.SubdsListStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First(a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First._PatternSubdScalarOrRangeCal.SubdScalarOrRangeCalStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First.First(a)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.subdivisionssubdivisionStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12025.480StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_14","Markup":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","Master":"___RESULTS_14","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK3","Original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","PinPage":"","ReadOrderIndex":3127,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2025.480","Start":3127,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a)

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request “Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","ModifiedCitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"shall%20set%20forth%20specific%20facts%20showing%20good%20cause%20justifying%20the%20discovery%20sought%20by%20the%20demand."}}}' docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (\r\n PsychStateSubjectCode\r\n Full.StateStatuteCite\r\n Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","error":null,"fullText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310","isParallel":false,"parallel":null,"start":3342,"end":3383,"pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","readOrderIndex":3342,"index":3342,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":0,"CiteShepSignalLink":null,"story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":null,"name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK4","foundBy":"PsychStateSubjectCode","FullTextParen":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$ref":"1"},"master":"___RESULTS_15","kernel_data":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (b)(1)StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2031.310, subd. (b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subdsubd. (b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd._PatternSubdsList.SubdsListStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First(b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First._PatternSubdScalarOrRangeCal.SubdScalarOrRangeCalStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First.First(b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.subdivisionssubdivisionStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12031.310StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_15"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","CitationRichText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":-1,"Title":"No Analysis","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/blank.jpg","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":null,"ShowShepardSignal":false,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (b)(1)StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §2031.310, subd. (b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subdsubd. (b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd._PatternSubdsList.SubdsListStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First(b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First._PatternSubdScalarOrRangeCal.SubdScalarOrRangeCalStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.First.First(b)(1)StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.Subd.subdivisionssubdivisionStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X12031.310StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_15","Markup":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","Master":"___RESULTS_15","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK4","Original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","PinPage":"","ReadOrderIndex":3344,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2031.310","Start":3344,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

The product at issue in this case is the St. Jude Fast-Cath Transseptal Introducer (the “Fast-Cath”), a basic surgical sheath commonly used by electrophysiologists to gain access to the left side of the heart. Plaintiffs (and the CSMC Parties) allege that the St. Jude Parties failed to warn healthcare providers against using third-party guidewires that are too small for the Fast-Cath because of the possibility of causing a deadly air embolism, which is what caused Decedent’s death.

In the deposition notice of the St. Jude Parties’ PMQ, the CSMC Parties identified the following topics: (1) instructions for use, including but not limited to any packaging instructions for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, (2) warnings for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure, and (3) product labels including any packaging labels for the Fast-Cath like the one used in Decedent’s procedure. The St. Jude Parties objected to these categories on the grounds that they are not described with particularity, that certain terms are vague and ambiguous, that the topics are overbroad as to time and scope and unduly burdensome, that the topics are irrelevant, that the CSMC Parties seek privileged and confidential matter, and that the CSMC Parties seek publicly available information.

The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions of the St. Jude Parties’ employees were properly noticed, and there is good cause to take these depositions because the employees are key witnesses to the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties seek this discovery in order to evaluate the pending motion for good faith settlement filed by the St. Jude Parties. The CSMC Parties also seek this discovery in order to evaluate the merits of the St. Jude Parties’ pending motion for summary judgment. Finally, the CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties’ objections are improper.

The CSMC Parties argue that the St. Jude Parties have taken the position that any depositions of its employees should only take place after a determination is made on the motion for good faith settlement. But the CSMC Parties argue that their cross-complaint and their right to indemnity would be extinguished if the motion for good faith settlement is heard before the CSMC Parties can conduct discovery on the failure to warn claim. The CSMC Parties contend that the depositions would lead to information that would show that the St. Jude Parties’ liability outweighs the good faith settlement’s nominal amount.

The St. Jude Parties contend that the Court cannot consider post-settlement discovery, and so there is no basis for ordering that these depositions take place for the purpose of evaluating the good faith settlement motion. While the St. Jude Parties are correct that evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is to “Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","ModifiedCitationText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"be%20made%20on%20the%20basis%20of%20information%20available%20at%20the%20time%20of%20settlement,"}}}' docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement,” (\r\n PsychCase\r\n Full.CaseCitation\r\n 38 Cal. 3d 488\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","original_string":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","error":null,"fullText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"38 Cal. 3d 488","isParallel":false,"parallel":"","start":6304,"end":6376,"pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","readOrderIndex":6358,"index":6304,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":4,"CiteShepSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XWN-0BS1-2NSF-C2C7-00000-00","story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":"499","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK5","foundBy":"PsychCase","FullTextParen":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$id":"11","End":2359,"Offset":5897,"Start":0,"nref":0,"nind":0,"story":"wdMainTextStory","namedRanges":[{"$id":"12","Name":"Psych_Cite_5","Range":{"$id":"13","ts":{"$ref":"11"},"_Start":407,"_End":479,"_Text":"The St. Jude Parties contend that the Court cannot consider post-settlement discovery, and so there is no basis for ordering that these depositions take place for the purpose of evaluating the good faith settlement motion. While the St. Jude Parties are correct that evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement,” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499) the CSMC Parties assert that the depositions will enable them (and by extension, the Court) to determine what information exactly was available to the settling parties at the time of settlement. The St. Jude Parties further contend that the requested depositions are not necessary for the good faith determination because there is already sufficient evidence for the Court to determine the St. Jude Parties’ approximate proportionate liability. The St. Jude Parties point to evidence that Dr. Wang testified that he did not read the Instructions for Use on the Fast-Cath and did not rely on St. Jude for instructions or training about the device or its use. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the St. Jude Parties do not dispute that the depositions were properly noticed, and the Court finds that the objections made by the St. Jude Parties to the deposition notices are without merit. The topics identified by the CSMC Parties are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether the depositions will help or hinder the CSMC Parties’ position is unclear, but that is not sufficient cause to deny them the opportunity to pursue relevant discovery. \rConclusion\rBased on the foregoing, the CSMC’s motion to compel is granted. The Court orders the St. Jude Parties to produce Frank Fraser, Melissa Wappel, and the Person Most Qualified at St. Jude Medical, LLC/Abbott Laboratories for deposition at a date, time, and location to be determined by the parties, but no later than _______________, 2020.\rThe St. Jude Parties are ordered to meet and confer with the CSMC Parties within _____ days of the date of this order to set mutually agreeable date(s) for the depositions.\rThe CSMC Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.\r\rDATED: August 13, 2020\t\t\t________________________________\rHon. Teresa A. Beaudet\rJudge, Los Angeles Superior Court\r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null}],"Range":{"$id":"14","ts":{"$ref":"11"},"_Start":0,"_End":2359,"_Text":"The St. Jude Parties contend that the Court cannot consider post-settlement discovery, and so there is no basis for ordering that these depositions take place for the purpose of evaluating the good faith settlement motion. While the St. Jude Parties are correct that evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement,” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499) the CSMC Parties assert that the depositions will enable them (and by extension, the Court) to determine what information exactly was available to the settling parties at the time of settlement. The St. Jude Parties further contend that the requested depositions are not necessary for the good faith determination because there is already sufficient evidence for the Court to determine the St. Jude Parties’ approximate proportionate liability. The St. Jude Parties point to evidence that Dr. Wang testified that he did not read the Instructions for Use on the Fast-Cath and did not rely on St. Jude for instructions or training about the device or its use. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the St. Jude Parties do not dispute that the depositions were properly noticed, and the Court finds that the objections made by the St. Jude Parties to the deposition notices are without merit. The topics identified by the CSMC Parties are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether the depositions will help or hinder the CSMC Parties’ position is unclear, but that is not sufficient cause to deny them the opportunity to pursue relevant discovery. \rConclusion\rBased on the foregoing, the CSMC’s motion to compel is granted. The Court orders the St. Jude Parties to produce Frank Fraser, Melissa Wappel, and the Person Most Qualified at St. Jude Medical, LLC/Abbott Laboratories for deposition at a date, time, and location to be determined by the parties, but no later than _______________, 2020.\rThe St. Jude Parties are ordered to meet and confer with the CSMC Parties within _____ days of the date of this order to set mutually agreeable date(s) for the depositions.\rThe CSMC Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.\r\rDATED: August 13, 2020\t\t\t________________________________\rHon. Teresa A. Beaudet\rJudge, Los Angeles Superior Court\r"}},"master":"___RESULTS_16","kernel_data":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyTech-Bilt, Inc.CaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyTech-Bilt, Inc.CaseName.SecondPartyWoodward-Clyde & AssociatesCaseName.SecondParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.SecondParty.PartyWoodward-Clyde & AssociatesCaseName.vv.CourtParenthetical (1985) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1985 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1985CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1985CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyTech-Bilt, Inc. HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter38 Cal.3d 488, 499Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages499Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First499Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber499Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage488Reporter.NameCal. 3dReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume38RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaSecondPartyWoodward-Clyde & Associates suprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_16"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","CitationRichText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":4,"Title":"Validity questioned - cases","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/IconSignalQuestionedAnalysis.gif","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XWN-0BS1-2NSF-C2C7-00000-00","ShowShepardSignal":true,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","ShortText":"38 Cal. 3d 488","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tech-Bilt,\r\nInc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyTech-Bilt, Inc.CaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyTech-Bilt, Inc.CaseName.SecondPartyWoodward-Clyde & AssociatesCaseName.SecondParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.SecondParty.PartyWoodward-Clyde & AssociatesCaseName.vv.CourtParenthetical (1985) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1985 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1985CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1985CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyTech-Bilt, Inc. HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter38 Cal.3d 488, 499Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages499Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First499Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber499Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage488Reporter.NameCal. 3dReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume38RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaSecondPartyWoodward-Clyde & Associates suprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_16","Markup":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","Master":"___RESULTS_16","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK5","Original_string":"Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","PinPage":"499","ReadOrderIndex":6306,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"38 Cal. 3d 488","Start":6306,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Tech-Bilt,\r\nInc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="4977E79D768C48208F760142CA7B14BB">Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499) the CSMC Parties assert that the depositions will enable them (and by extension, the Court) to determine what information exactly was available to the settling parties at the time of settlement. The St. Jude Parties further contend that the requested depositions are not necessary for the good faith determination because there is already sufficient evidence for the Court to determine the St. Jude Parties’ approximate proportionate liability. The St. Jude Parties point to evidence that Dr. Wang testified that he did not read the Instructions for Use on the Fast-Cath and did not rely on St. Jude for instructions or training about the device or its use. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the St. Jude Parties do not dispute that the depositions were properly noticed, and the Court finds that the objections made by the St. Jude Parties to the deposition notices are without merit. The topics identified by the CSMC Parties are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether the depositions will help or hinder the CSMC Parties’ position is unclear, but that is not sufficient cause to deny them the opportunity to pursue relevant discovery.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the CSMC’s motion to compel is granted. The Court orders the St. Jude Parties to produce Frank Fraser, Melissa Wappel, and the Person Most Qualified at St. Jude Medical, LLC/Abbott Laboratories for deposition at a date, time, and location to be determined by the parties, but no later than _______________, 2020.

The St. Jude Parties are ordered to meet and confer with the CSMC Parties within _____ days of the date of this order to set mutually agreeable date(s) for the depositions.

The CSMC Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: August 13, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC688152    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

delinia r. pinzon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

cedars sinai medical center, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688152

Hearing Date:

July 23, 2020

Hearing Time:

3:30 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS

Background

Plaintiffs Delinia R. Pinzon, Anadel R. Pinzon, Irene Pinzon Santos, and Joseph Benjamin Pinzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this medical malpractice action on December 26, 2017 against, among others, Cedars Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) following the death of Anastacio Pinzon (“Decedent”) after surgery.

On or about April 12, 2019, CSMC served Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records on (1) Gregg Kobashigawa, who was Decedent’s tax preparer, and (2) Short Round Productions (“Short Round”), which is a business owned by Plaintiff Joseph Pinzon, Decedent’s son. (Curran Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The subpoena to Mr. Kobashigawa sought, regardless of date, “any and all tax records, documents, reports, files, claims and any other records, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically relating to [Decedent].” The subpoena to Short Round sought, regardless of date, “any and all business records, documents, reports, files, claims and any other records, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically relating to [Decedent].” On May 6, 2016, Plaintiffs served an objection to the subpoenas. (Curran Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiffs now move to quash the subpoenas. CSMC opposes.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) provides:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

Plaintiffs argue that the subpoenas should be quashed because, as to the tax preparer, the subpoena seeks privileged financial and tax records, and as to Decedent’s son’s production company, the subpoena is overbroad and seeks private business information. Plaintiffs also argue that the subpoenas seek information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CSMC counters that this information is relevant to proving damages because Plaintiffs have claimed loss of gifts and benefits as recoverable damages, including future payments for Short Round. (Hall Decl., ¶¶ 4, 10, 11-15, 22, Exs. A-F, K.) To that end, CSMC propounded discovery to determine Decedent’s income and to determine Short Round’s income. (Hall Decl., ¶ 6.) CSMC contends that Plaintiffs have frustrated these efforts. (Hall Decl. ¶ 6.) After meeting and conferring, Plaintiffs provided an informal discovery production (without verification) of a chart showing how much financial assistance was given by Decedent to Short Round (Hall Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. G), Schedule K-1s for Decedent’s medical corporation from 2012 to 2017 (Hall Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. H), and bank statements for Short Round that showed deposits but did not identify the provenance of the deposits (Hall Decl., ¶ 19 , Ex. I). (Hall Decl., ¶ 8.) CSMC then requested that Plaintiffs provide a response stating that the tax documents produced would be the only ones used to establish Decedent’s income, but Plaintiffs failed to respond. (Hall Decl., ¶ 9.)

In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35, the California Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court, supra3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Ibid.) “A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Ibid.)   

It is well-settled that the right of privacy includes the right to privacy in financial matters, including personal tax returns. (Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 480-481.) Moreover, Decedent has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, namely, that the underlying legal issue (medical malpractice) does not directly implicate Decedent’s private financial information. The threatened intrusion is also serious, because Plaintiff seeks privileged tax return information, without limitation as to time, and potentially implicating the records of Decedent’s surviving spouse. Moreover, the Court does not find that CSMS has no feasible alternatives to obtaining information about Decedent’s income, since it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have already disclosed income-related records.

As far as Short Round, Plaintiffs argue in a conclusory manner that these records violate Joseph Pinzon’s privacy rights because the information is not public. But the question remains whether Short Round has any protectable privacy rights, and whether those have been implicated. In any event, Plaintiffs also contend that the subpoena is overbroad as to time and scope, and the Court is inclined to agree. Further, in light of the production that has already been made by Plaintiffs regarding Short Round, the Court does not find that CSMC has no feasible alternative to confirming and authenticating the records thus produced.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: July 23, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ST. JUDE MEDICAL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DENOVE JOHN F. ESQ.