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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Van Nuys Courthouse East
Los Angeles, California
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
SERENA R. MURILLO
ARIMIE CALIN MD
INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE FKA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES
KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL KAR
KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL ESQ.
KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL
OZERAN DAVID JAY
DEHAAS LOUIS HENRY JR. ESQ.
Court documents are not available for this case.
Hearing03/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
Hearing11/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Summary AdjudicationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
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 475Read MoreRead Less
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 DefendantsRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:47 PM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Reassignment to an Independent Calendar Court) of 06/03/2021); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Reassignment to an Independent Calendar Court)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
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 CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by CALIN ARIMIE, MD (Defendant); INSITE DIGESTIVE HEALTH CARE (fka SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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
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
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
DocketPI General Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by DMITRY GUROVICH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
The Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED.
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.”
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases