This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/21/2020 at 04:40:20 (UTC).

GVANTSA GIORGADZE VS ROBERTSONS ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/11/2018 GVANTSA GIORGADZE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROBERTSONS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9370

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GIORGADZE GUANTSA

Defendants and Respondents

ROBERTSON'S

WASHINGTON RICHARD DUANE

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BURUNSUZYAN MARO ESQ.

BURUNSUZYAN MARO ELLEN

Defendant Attorneys

FUSELIER CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

PERKINS JAMES J

ENCARNACION MERVYN YOUNG

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

8/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE MOTION TO COMPEL) OF 07/31/2020

7/31/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE MOTION TO COMPEL) OF 07/31/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

7/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

Notice of Ruling

6/24/2020: Notice of Ruling

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY TO DR. ARORAS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

4/13/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY TO DR. ARORAS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JAMES J. PERKINS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DR. ARORA'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION O

3/26/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JAMES J. PERKINS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DR. ARORA'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION O

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AMBER D. ESPOSITO IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DR. ARORA'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

3/26/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AMBER D. ESPOSITO IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DR. ARORA'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Notice of Ruling

11/5/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Continue Trial Date

10/31/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED PRE-TRIAL DATES OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION

11/4/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED PRE-TRIAL DATES OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION

Substitution of Attorney

9/27/2019: Substitution of Attorney

ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/10/2018: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/14/2018: ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

8/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUMMONS -

6/11/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

6/11/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/12/2021
  • Hearing05/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • Hearing04/26/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • Hearing12/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint as to defendant Washington

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Maro Ellen Burunsuzyan (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter Re Motion to Compel) of 07/31/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re Motion to Compel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 08/16/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD., A Partnership Erroneously Sued As Robertson's (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD., A Partnership Erroneously Sued As Robertson's (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • DocketROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Guantsa Giorgadze (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Guantsa Giorgadze (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709370    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 27

The parties are STRONGLY encouraged to appear telephonically based on the spread of COVID-19, the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge, and the Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GVANTSA GIORGADZE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERTSONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC709370

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RIPU ARORA’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Dept. 27

10:00 a.m.

June 23, 2020

On June 11, 2018, plaintiff Gvantsa Giogardze (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Robertson’s Ready Mix (“Defendant”) and Richard Duane Washington arising from a July 14, 2016 car accident. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff’s treating physician, Ripu Arora, M.D. (“Dr. Arora”) was deposed by Defendant.  Dr. Arora failed to answer 68 questions.  Defendant timely filed this motion to compel further deposition testimony on March 26, 2020.  

If a deponent fails to answer any questions or to produce any document under his or her control, the noticing party may move for an order compelling the answer or production.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480 (a).) (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 20225.480 (b).) (Cal. R. Court 3.1345.)

Deposition Testimony

Defendant argues that Dr. Arora should be compelled to name the custodian of records for his office.  Defendant also contend it is entitled to know how much of Dr. Arora’s practice is devoted to personal injury cases, litigation cases, and his experience as a professional witness.  Lastly, Defendant claims it will be prejudiced without testimony regarding Dr. Arora’s billing practices and ownership interests/involvements in various medical centers involved in the litigation because the testimony is relevant to show Dr. Arora’s bias underpinning his opinion and treatment of Plaintiff. 

In opposition, Dr. Arora argues that Defendant sought opinion testimony when he was not designated as an expert and was subpoenaed for deposition as a percipient witness relative to his medical treatment and care of Plaintiff.  Dr. Arora further characterizes Defendant’s line of questioning as one seeking collateral impeachment.  

A treating physician is a percipient expert, but that does not mean that his testimony is limited to only personal observations. Rather, like any other expert, he may provide both fact and opinion testimony. As the legislative history clarifies, what distinguishes the treating physician from a retained expert is not the content of the testimony, but the context in which he became familiar with the plaintiff's injuries that were ultimately the subject of litigation, and which form the factual basis for the medical opinion. The contextual nature of the inquiry is implicit in the language of [former] section 2034, subdivision (a)(2), which describes a retained expert as one ‘retained by a party for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in anticipation of the litigation or in preparation for the trial of the action.’ (Italics added.) A treating physician is not consulted for litigation purposes, but rather learns of the plaintiff's injuries and medical history because of the underlying physician-patient relationship.”  (Ochoa v. Dorado, 228 Cal. App. 4th 120, 139 (2014) (citing Shreiber v. Estate of Kiser, 22 Cal. 4th 31, 35-36 (1999).)

Further, “the identity and opinions of treating physicians are not privileged. Rather, because they acquire the information that forms the factual basis for their opinions independently of the litigation, they are subject to no special discovery restrictions. . .  . Indeed, defendants have a strong incentive to depose treating physicians well prior to the exchange of expert information to ascertain whether their observations and conclusions support the plaintiff's allegations. [Citation] Conceivably, some treating physicians may ultimately become defense witnesses.Shreiber, 22 Cal. 4th at 38.

Therefore, even if Dr. Arora was not retained for litigation purposes, Defendant is entitled to ask questions about any factors that might influence Dr. Arora’s opinion about Plaintiff’s treatment, including facts about his payment practices, lien operations, and the reasonable value of the treatment provided to Plaintiff. (Ochoa, 228 Cal. App. 4th at 140 (treating physician may opine as to reasonable value of services provided to plaintiff, assuming that treating physician is qualified).) However, Defendant’s questioning may not extend beyond facts and opinions concerning Plaintiff, unless those opinions are derived independently of this litigation.  

Also, Dr. Arora’s recordkeeping practices, including the identity of persons who are in charge of maintaining his patient charts, are also open to discovery as Plaintiff’s patient chart is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.  

The Court does not see a separate statement submitted by Dr. Arora.  Nor has Dr. Arora  met his burden to justify the objections asserted to each deposition question.  (Williams v. Superior Court, 5th 531, 541 (2017) (party resisting discovery has burden of justifying objection and failure to respond).)

Defendant’s Document Requests

Defendant’s document requests admittedly have two purposes: (1) to seek evidence of common ownership between claimed treating facilities; and (2) to obtain indirect evidence of why the bills are overcharged in this case.  

The Court does not see a separate statement submitted by Dr. Arora.  Nor has Dr. Arora  met his burden to justify the objections asserted to each request for production.  (Williams v. Superior Court, Accordingly, Dr. Arora is ordered to produce documents responsive to the subpoena’s requests for production 1-46.  

Sanctions

Both parties seek monetary sanctions.  The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that imposition of a sanction would be unjust.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480 (j).)  Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Dr. Arora’s counsel of record in the amount of $800, consisting of 4 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $185 and a $60 filing fee, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 23rd day of June 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court