This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 13:43:57 (UTC).

JOHN FELACTU VS J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/21/2017 JOHN FELACTU filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against J K RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEIRDRE HILL and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6078

  • Filing Date:

    06/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DEIRDRE HILL

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FELACTU JOHN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

11651-11652 YORK AVENUE LLC

J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVIC INC.

Cross Defendant

DILAN CHRISTINA

Other

CAMERON PARRY G. ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MCLACHLAN MICHAEL D.

MCLACHLAN LAW APC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KORN JEFFREY W. ESQ.

CAMERON PARRY G. ESQ.

THE CAMERON LAW FIRM

JEFFREY W. KORN ATTORNEY AT LAW

DROZIN GARTH MATTHEW

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

THE CAMERON LAW FIRM

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS JK RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. AND 11651-11652 YORK AVENUE, LLC; DECLARAT

3/6/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS JK RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. AND 11651-11652 YORK AVENUE, LLC; DECLARAT

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

3/7/2018: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Unknown

3/7/2018: Unknown

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

3/20/2018: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

Minute Order

4/6/2018: Minute Order

Answer

6/7/2018: Answer

Opposition

7/6/2018: Opposition

Reply

7/11/2018: Reply

Minute Order

7/19/2018: Minute Order

Other -

9/4/2018: Other -

Minute Order

9/6/2018: Minute Order

Opposition

11/19/2018: Opposition

Case Management Statement

11/19/2018: Case Management Statement

Opposition

11/20/2018: Opposition

Minute Order

11/21/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

5/13/2019: Unknown

Association of Attorney

11/3/2017: Association of Attorney

Notice of Change of Firm Name

9/6/2017: Notice of Change of Firm Name

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff); Christina Dilan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff); JOHN FELACTU (Plaintiff); Christina Dilan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories, set 3 Propouded to Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc.); Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff); Christina Dilan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Depositin of Anil Mehta; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff); JOHN FELACTU (Plaintiff); Christina Dilan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Further Status Conference (re removal to Federal Court (and potential motion setting date)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Order (-Certified copy of Order Remanding Adversary Proceedings to Superior Court); Filed by JOHN FELACTU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Further Status Conference re removal to Federal Court (and po...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (of Order Dismissing or Staying Entire Action) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion - Other of Order Dismissing or Staying Enti...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
163 More Docket Entries
  • 07/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Summons; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by John Felactu (Plaintiff); JOHN FELACTU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666078    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

JOHN FELACTU,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC666078

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: July 22, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff John Felactu

Responding Party: Defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc. and 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC

Motion to Quash Records Subpoena

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

The motion is MOOT and thus DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2017, plaintiff John Felactu filed a complaint against defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc. and 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC for premises liability based on a February 24, 2017 incident. Plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently failed to maintain, repair, inspect, and/or replace the heater. As a result, a fire ignited, which caused serious burns and injuries to plaintiff.

On April 9, 2018, defendants filed a cross complaint against Christina Dilan for contractual indemnity, comparative fault, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On September 8, 2018, Dilan filed a bankruptcy petition.

On November 15, 2018, defendants filed a Notice of Removal of this action.

On January 29, 2019, the bankruptcy court remanded the case.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests an order quashing defendants’ subpoenas to Torrance Memorial Medical Center plaintiff’s medical, radiology, and billing records.

CCP §1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83. Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:597.

Medical records are protected by the right to privacy. Although relevance is typically construed liberally (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy, such as consumer records:

[E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. . . . [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective . . . [meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value.

Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855 (internal quotes and citations omitted).

This is true even where the party asserting the right to privacy is the party who brought the suit. See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 (“While the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits . . . . [A]n implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.”.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665.

Defendants served subpoenas on January 31, 2020. Plaintiff objects on the grounds that they are overly broad in scope and time. Through the meet and confer process, plaintiff agreed to limit the subpoenas to all documents and records concerning the care, treatment, examination of plaintiff from February 24, 2007 to the present solely related to his hands.

Plaintiff also contends that they are untimely because the cut-off for discovery was January 25, 2020.

In opposition, defendant argues that the motion is moot because plaintiff’s medical records were produced at the deposition of his treating physician, Dr. Michael Baker. Further, defendant asserts, the subpoenas complied with the language agreed to by counsel. Defendant also contends that the information sought fin the subpoenas with respect to plaintiff’s previous medical condition is relevant to the issues to be determined in this action.

The court finds that motion is MOOT because plaintiff’s medical records have been produced.

Both parties seek sanctions.

The court denies plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, finding that defendant did not file an opposition in bad faith or without substantial justification. CCP §1987.2(a). The court also denies defendant’s request for sanctions although it is unclear as to why plaintiff did not withdraw the motion considering that the medical records had already been produced.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.