Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2021 at 02:28:46 (UTC).

DMITRY GUROVICH VS CALIN ARIMIE, MD, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/15/2020 DMITRY GUROVICH filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against CALIN ARIMIE, MD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, SERENA R. MURILLO and VIRGINIA KEENY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9823

  • Filing Date:

    10/15/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

VIRGINIA KEENY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GUROVICH DMITRY

Defendants

ARIMIE CALIN MD

INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE FKA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL KAR

KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL ESQ.

KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL

Defendant Attorneys

OZERAN DAVID JAY

DEHAAS LOUIS HENRY JR. ESQ.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2022
  • Hearing03/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • Hearing11/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Hearing07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Hearing07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Add Punitive Damages to Plaintiff's Complaint Against All Defendants per C.C.P. sections 425.13 (a), 426.50, 473, 474 and 475

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Hearing07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend the Original Plaintiff's Complaint to Add a Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code Section 1708.5 Against All the Defendants

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • Docketat 2:47 PM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Reassignment to an Independent Calendar Court) of 06/03/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Reassignment to an Independent Calendar Court)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (and/or Modify Six Business Records Subpoenas Propounded by Defendants to Plaintiff's Medical Providers Douglas Woodburn, M.D.; Lewis Kanter, MD, Adam Sanford MD; Darrow Wellness Institute; Ross Kaplan, MD; and Valley Family Medicine Urgent Care Center) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2021
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by CALIN ARIMIE, MD (Defendant); INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE (fka SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2021
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Taking Motion to Strike Off Calendar); Filed by CALIN ARIMIE, MD (Defendant); INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE (fka SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Submission of Stipulation To Strike Claim for Punitive and Exemplary Damages From Complaint); Filed by CALIN ARIMIE, MD (Defendant); INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE (fka SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Striking Claim for Punitive Damages and Exemplary Damages From Complaint); Filed by CALIN ARIMIE, MD (Defendant); INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE (fka SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV39823    Hearing Date: June 1, 2021    Dept: 29

DMITRY GUROVICH vs CALIN ARIMIE, MD, et al.

Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment Of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case To An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom From Department 29, A PI Hub Court;

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. On the Court' own motion and order, and at the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby reassigned and transferred to the NORTHWEST District, VAN NUYS Superior Court, the Honorable VIRGINIA KEENY, Judge presiding in Department "W" for FURTHER REASSIGNMENT. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Hearing on Motion to Quash and ANY pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: ALL HEARINGS currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are to be considered taken off calendar, subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates. Counsel are to wait for notice from the receiving department Re: new hearing dates.)

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all Parties of record.

Case Number: 20STCV39823    Hearing Date: April 29, 2021    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE RULING

The Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standards

The Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas should be quashed on the ground that they are not limited to the medical injuries he put at issue.

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).)

CCP section 2017.220 provides,In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.”

Communications between patients and their physicians and psychotherapists are presumed to be confidential. (Evid. Code, § 917.)

In addition, the Plaintiff’s attorney has suggested that the Court issue an order that would seal the documents, if they are filed with any motion.

California Rule 2.551. provides “Procedures for filing records under seal (a) Court approval required. . . .

A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.”

Discussion

A plaintiff who seeks to recover for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent, but does not waive the privilege with respect to the plaintiff’s lifetime medical history. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) Here, Plaintiff contends that subpoenas are overbroad, because Plaintiff claims injuries only related to the hemorrhoidal removals/banding without consent. (Motion 3:21-23. ) Defendant points out that they have agreed to limit the records obtained to five years. Opposition 10:4-8. (Declaration of Rebecca T. Handlin, ¶ 4. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s reliance on Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016 is misplaced because Defendant does not request psychiatric documents. Id. at 12: 21-25. Further, Defendant argues sealing the medical records at issue in this motion is not warranted because the Plaintiff must obtain a court order to redact documents. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(a).

Plaintiff’s reply states that the Opposition does not have legal authority to justify not limiting the subject matter of the subpoenas. Reply 4: 15-21.Further, the Opposition fails to recognize that Communications between physicians and patients are presumed to be confidential. Evidence Code section 917.

The parties have agreed that the subpoenas are limited to information before the action. However, Defendants’ request for medical records regarding Plaintiff’s medical history within these five years is overbroad given the privacy interests a Plaintiff has, even if they put their physical condition at issue. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.The medical records are not sealed because Plaintiff’s must comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(a) and obtain a Court order to redact the Plaintiff’s medical records.

The Motion is granted, with subpoenas limited to five years before the date of the accident and refined to the injuries Plaintiff has propounded in this case. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s must pursue a Court order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(a) to redact Plaintiff’s medical records.

The Court declines to award sanctions. The Court concludes that the parties had a good faith dispute as to the proper scope of the subpoenas, and that neither party has acted in bad faith.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE DOES 1-100 is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer OZERAN DAVID J

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DEHAAS LOUIS H.