On 06/21/2017 HEATHER REYES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JENNIFER GOODNIGHT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 100
LEE CORBIN RICHARD
LEE CORBIN RICHARD
CAMPANO ANGELO F. ESQ.
MACHEN BETTY CARRILLO
MACKEY ROBERT THOMAS
ANDERSON EDOR GODFREY III
10/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/12/2018: Ex Parte Application
10/12/2018: Minute Order
10/16/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
11/1/2018: Demand for Jury Trial
11/8/2018: Proof of Personal Service
at 08:30 AM in Department 7, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Summons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Corbin Richard Lee (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Corbin Richard Lee (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 7, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service of Summons; Filed by Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Beverly Goodnight (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer to Unverified Complaint; Filed by Beverly Goodnight (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Amendment to complaint : Corbin Richard Lee (Doe 1); Filed by Amy Cruz (Plaintiff); Edward Karpinski (Plaintiff); Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 7, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (of Plaintiff Heather Reyes to continue current trial and FSC date); Filed by Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Re: Plaintiff Heather Reyes' Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date, and Related Dates); Filed by Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Amy Cruz (Plaintiff); Edward Karpinski (Plaintiff); Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Amy Cruz (Plaintiff); Edward Karpinski (Plaintiff); Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Amy Cruz (Plaintiff); Edward Karpinski (Plaintiff); Heather Reyes (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC665080 Hearing Date: February 11, 2020 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs Heather Reyes, Amy Cruz (“Plaintiff”), and Edward Karpinski filed this action against defendants Jennifer Goodnight, Beverly Goodnight, Kwang Lee, Richard Cordin, Corbin Lee (“Defendant”), and David Poole for injuries Plaintiff sustained from a motor vehicle accident when she was a passenger. On December 16, 2019, Defendant issued a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Sue Frixione, PsyD for documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s care, treatment and examination. Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoenas for her psychological records.
When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)
However, “although in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) General allegations of pain and suffering that arise from garden-variety personal injury cases do not automatically place the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue. (Id. at p. 1015.)
The subpoena asks for “any and all documents, paper and digital records pertaining to care, treatment and examination” of Plaintiff, with no limit as to time or type of treatment. Plaintiff argues the subpoena invades her right to privacy, seeks irrelevant records, and is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant argues Plaintiff claims emotional distress damages and thereby put her mental health at issue. Defendant also contends Plaintiff testified that she saw Sue Frixione after the accident but did not submit the actual testimony.
Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress does not automatically open her mental health records for all time and all treatments. The subpoena is thus overbroad, and Defendant did not submit evidence establishing the direct relevance of the protected information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED. The parties are to meet and confer in person or on the phone to discuss a narrowly tailored subpoena to Sue Frixione for information directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court does not award sanctions as both parties did not sufficiently meet and confer to attempt to resolve this dispute.
Moving party to give notice.
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.
Case Number: BC665080 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS AMY CRUZ AND HEATHER REYES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs Heather Reyes, Amy Cruz, and Edward Karpinski filed this action against defendants Jennifer Goodnight, Beverly Goodnight, Kwang Lee, Richard Cordin, Corbin Lee, and David Poole for injuries and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant Beverly Goodnight (“Defendant”) moves to compel the depositions of plaintiffs Heather Reyes (“Reyes”) and Amy Cruz (“Cruz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to take place on November 13, 14, or 18, 2019. Co-defendant Corbin Lee joins in both these motions. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motions.
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
On October 30, 2018, Defendant noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for February 19, 2019. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs served objections stating counsel was unavailable and objected to the phrase that the deposition would continue from day to day unless mutually agreed to or an alternative date and time are agreed to. The objection further stated that counsel would provide alternative dates for the deposition. On August 16, 2019, defense counsel requested dates of availability from Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs did not provide dates. On August 22, 2019, defense counsel once again requested dates by the close of business and threatened to file a motion. Plaintiffs did not provide dates.
Co-defendant Corbin Lee (“Lee”) noticed Cruz and Reyes’s depositions for September 13, 2019, but Plaintiffs served the same objections to the notices claiming unavailability. Lee requested available dates on September 3, 2019. Plaintiffs did not provide dates, so the Lee schedule the depositions for September 25, 2019. Plaintiffs served the same objection on September 20, 2019 citing counsel’s unavailability. On September 24, 2019, defense counsel informed Plaintiff that the depositions would proceed and that non-appearances would be taken. Plaintiffs and their counsel did not appear.
Defendants are entitled to take Plaintiffs’ depositions. The Court GRANTS the motions. Plaintiffs are to appear for their depositions on November 13, 14, or 18, or within the next 30 days as agreed to by the parties.
Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are imposed against Reyes and counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order. Sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are imposed against Cruz and counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.