On 01/31/2018 JESUS RAMOS RIOS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DAVID PIZZI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****2587
01/31/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
RIOS JESUS RAMOS
DOES 1 TO 100
PIZZI DAVID
YEUNG MICHAEL L. ESQ.
EL DABE S. EDMOND ESQ.
RITTER JONATHAN MICHAEL ESQ.
RAFFALOW BRETOI & ADAMS
RAFFALOW BRETOI LUTZ & STELE
ZUREK RONALD
RODRIGUEZ WALTER ARTURO
7/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)
7/6/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPELLING A SECOND MEDICAL EXAMINATION
7/10/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL A SECOND IME
7/10/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION
4/14/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND IME
4/14/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION
4/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/03/2020
2/24/2020: Separate Statement
2/24/2020: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH
1/9/2020: Substitution of Attorney
12/10/2019: Association of Attorney
12/20/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE [STIPULATED]
12/23/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/30/2019: [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
5/23/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
1/22/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name
5/8/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
6/13/2018: Substitution of Attorney -
Hearing02/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
Hearing02/08/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND IME) - Held - Motion Denied
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO UNDERGO A SECOND DEPOSITION) - Held - Motion Granted
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel a Second IME); Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)
DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Undergo a Second Deposition); Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)
DocketOpposition (Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Compelling a Second Medical Examination); Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)
DocketPlaintiff's Notice of Posting Jury Fees; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)
DocketSubstitution of Attorney
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)
DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)
DocketAnswer; Filed by David Pizzi (Defendant)
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons; Filed by Jesus Ramos Rios (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint
Case Number: BC692587 Hearing Date: July 17, 2020 Dept: 32
jesus ramos rios, Plaintiff, v.
david pizzi, Defendant. |
Case No.: BC692587
Hearing Date: July 17, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion to compel additional independent medical examination
motion to compel second session of deposition
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jesus Ramos Rios (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant David Pizzi (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff submitted to a physical examination by Dr. Douglas Kiester, M.D., on January 15, 2019. Now, Defendant moves for a second examination, following Plaintiff’s back surgery on October 22, 2019. Defendant also moves for a second deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes both motions. The motion for a second medical examination is denied without prejudice. The motion for a second deposition is granted.
Legal Standard
When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.) A defendant is permitted to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) If the defendant seeks to obtain an additional physical examination of the plaintiff, the defendant must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel an additional physical examination must “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination . . . ,” and must include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Additionally, the defendant must make a showing of “good cause” to obtain the second physical examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).)
A party is required to submit to one deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subds. (a), (b).) However, a party may seek an order from the Court compelling a second deposition based upon a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subds. (a), (b).)
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Compel Second Examination
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a second examination with Kiester is denied without prejudice. Defendant has not described the “manner, conditions, scope and nature” of the additional examinations, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Instead, Defendant proposes that the Court order Plaintiff to submit to “essentially the same type and scope of examination as was first done.” (Declaration of Sheral A. Hyde, ¶ 7.) This is not sufficient. In order to order Plaintiff to submit to an additional examination, the Court must “describe in detail who will conduct the examination, where and when it will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The way to describe these ‘diagnostic tests and procedures’—fully and in detail—is to list them by name.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.) Moreover, given COVID-19, the Court expects the notice to include a discussion of how the examination will be conducted safely.
Based upon the foregoing, the motion is denied without prejudice. Should Defendant re-file the motion, the Court’s tentative order would be to grant the motion because Plaintiff has undergone a new surgery concerning the injuries at issue. The current condition of Plaintiff’s back is relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed damages, i.e., current pain and suffering. Therefore, the Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer to determine whether they will stipulate to a second examination, including the parameters for any such examination.
B. Motion to Compel Second Deposition
The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second deposition. Plaintiff’s recent back surgery is pertinent to Plaintiff’s claimed damages in this action. Accordingly, the Court concludes that good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second session of deposition. The scope of the deposition is limited to the time period of November 12, 2018, the date of Plaintiff’s previous deposition, to the present.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to an additional physical examination is denied without prejudice. The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer within thirty (30) days to determine whether they will stipulate to a second examination.
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second deposition is granted. Plaintiff shall sit for a second session of deposition concerning the time period of November 12, 2018 to the present. The deposition shall occur within thirty (30) days unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The Court authorizes the deposition to occur remotely to accommodate any concerns about social distancing.
Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: July 17, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court