This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/25/2021 at 00:05:27 (UTC).

DIANA WILSON VS KENNETH ANDERSON ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/21/2018 DIANA WILSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against KENNETH ANDERSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELAINE LU, STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, MICHAEL E. WHITAKER and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4675

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELAINE LU

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

WILSON DIANA

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE

ANDERSON JANE

ANDERSON KENNETH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MARDIROSSIAN GARO ESQ.

MARDIROSSIAN GARO

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

NICOLSON LAW GROUP PC

CHO DANIEL S

CANTER DAVID S.

CHO DANIEL S.

FOX DANA ALDEN

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO DARKNESS DUE TO IMPROPER LIGHTING

7/19/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO DARKNESS DUE TO IMPROPER LIGHTING

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK IN AREA

7/19/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK IN AREA

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF MOVING BACK TO ALASKA

7/19/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF MOVING BACK TO ALASKA

Witness List

7/7/2021: Witness List

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSONS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSONS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

7/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSONS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSONS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSON'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF MOVING BACK TO ALASKA OR BEING A RESIDENT OF ALASKA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

7/7/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSON'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF MOVING BACK TO ALASKA OR BEING A RESIDENT OF ALASKA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

7/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

Brief - BRIEF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSON'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO WILLIAM F. SKINNER, M.D., AND ELANDER EYE CARE

2/19/2021: Brief - BRIEF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DIANA WILSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSON'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO WILLIAM F. SKINNER, M.D., AND ELANDER EYE CARE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION...)

3/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION...)

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

6/19/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

ORDER RE:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE

6/29/2018: ORDER RE:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE

Minute Order -

6/29/2018: Minute Order -

DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/5/2018: DEFENDANT KENNETH ANDERSON'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/5/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

Opposition - to Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint

6/18/2018: Opposition - to Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER RE: DEFENDANT JANE ANDERSON

6/22/2018: DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER RE: DEFENDANT JANE ANDERSON

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE RE: DEFENDANT JANE ANDERSON

6/22/2018: DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE RE: DEFENDANT JANE ANDERSON

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

3/14/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

79 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/17/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff); Kenneth Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Jury Trial) of 07/20/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (Plaintiff Diana Wilson's Notice of Lodging Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Videos of Plaintiff Diana Wilson); Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketPlaintiff Diana Wilson's Notice of Lodging Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Videos of Plaintiff Diana Wilson; Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Cynthia Lamb CSR# 8349); Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Plaintiff Diana Wilson's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Videos of Plaintiff Diana Wilson); Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Kenneth Anderson (Defendant); Jane Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DANIFL S. CHO REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Diana Wilson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694675    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

March 4, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC694675

MOTION

Motion to Quash Subpoena

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Kenneth Anderson

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiff Diana Wilson

MOTION

Plaintiff Diana Wilson (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant Kenneth Anderson (“Defendant”) based on a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to quash subpoenas Plaintiff served on (1) William F. Skinner, M.D. (“Skinner”) and (2) Elander Eye Care (“Elander”).

The Elander Eye Care subpoena seek records “any and all records related to KENNETH ANDERSON (D.O.B.: 10/01/1953) including, but not limited to, eye examinations, diagnosis, physicians' orders, treatment, prescriptions, optical imaging of the eyes, and eye surgery reports, from January 2015 to January 2019,” and the Skinner subpoena seeks "any and all records related to KENNETH ANDERSON (D.O.B.: 10/1/1953) including but not limited to examination reports, consultation reports, progress notes, charts, physicians' orders, prescriptions, diagnostics, and imaging, from January 2015 to January 2019, that relate to any medical condition that might affect Mr. Kenneth Anderson's ability to operate a motor vehicle.” (See Declaration of Daniel S. Cho, Exhs. A & B.)

ANALYSIS

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion to quash, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Defendant has a right to privacy in his medical history. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) Accordingly, the Court cannot order disclosure of Defendant’s medical records unless the records are directly relevant to this litigation. (See id. at pp. 855-856.)

Plaintiff advances Defendant’s deposition testimony. At his deposition, Defendant testified that at the time of the underlying accident, he was taking medication for high blood pressure because he has hypertension issues and using prescription eye drops for a pressure issue in his right eye “to stave off glaucoma.” (Declaration of Sedrak Yenikomshuyan, Exh. 1, pp. 62-63.) Defendant also testified that he has had cataract surgery. (Declaration of Sedrak Yenikomshuyan, Exh. 1, p. 64.) Defendant also testified at deposition that, at the time of the accident, he did not see Plaintiff until immediately before he struck Plaintiff. (Declaration of Sedrak Yenikomshuyan, Exh. 1, p. 47.) Defendant’s health issues including his visual acuity and hypertension are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Plaintiff is entitled to investigate whether Defendant’s health issues impaired his ability to safely operate a vehicle.

Defendant asserts the physician-patient privilege. However, Evidence Code section 999 statesThere is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient in a proceeding to recover damages on account of the conduct of the patient if good cause for disclosure of the communication is shown.” (See also John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1202 [per Evidence Code section 999 physician-patient privilege does not bar Plaintiff from seeking Defendant’s HIV related medical records].) Here, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the disclosure of the communication, and accordingly, the physician-patient privilege asserted by Defendant does not apply.

Notwithstanding, the Court determines that there are issues with the breadth of the subpoenas. First, the time period in which records are sought is problematic. Records for the period of February 2018 through January 2019 is irrelevant as the alleged incident occurred on January 24, 2018. Second, the Court finds that the subpoenas as phrased will result in the production of health care records that are irrelevant. As advanced by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendant’s health care records which are related solely to his glaucoma, cataracts and hypertension issues are germane.

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to quash the subject subpoenas, but will order the subpoenas modified as follows:

  1. Elander Eye Care subpoena: “any and all records, including but not limited to, eye examinations, diagnosis, physicians' orders, treatment, prescriptions, optical imaging of the eyes, and eye surgery reports, from January 2015 to January 2018 related to any diagnosis or treatment of KENNETH ANDERSON (D.O.B.: 10/01/1953) for glaucoma or cataracts.

  2. William F. Skinner, M.D. subpoena: "any and all records, including but not limited to examination reports, consultation reports, progress notes, charts, physicians' orders, prescriptions, diagnostics, and imaging, from January 2015 to January 2018 related to any diagnosis or treatment of KENNETH ANDERSON (D.O.B.: 10/1/1953) for hypertension or high blood pressure.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s order, and file a proof of service of such.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHO DANIEL S

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CANTER, DAVID S.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.