This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/22/2019 at 00:04:04 (UTC).

JOSE LUIS OSUNA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 01/03/2017 JOSE LUIS OSUNA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5500

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

OSUNA JOSE LUIS

SANCHEZ ESPERANZA VELARDE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO JOSE LUIS OSUNA DECEASED

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

CALIFORNIA STATE OF

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Cross Defendant

SIMENTAL RUDY JR.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CARRILLO LUIS A. ESQ.

CARRILLO MICHAEL SANTINO ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

ALBRIGHT YEE & SCHMIT LLP

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

AUSTIN DAVID ALLEN

 

Court Documents

Other -

10/5/2018: Other -

Minute Order

10/11/2018: Minute Order

Summons

10/18/2018: Summons

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Notice

1/29/2019: Notice

Stipulation and Order

4/4/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

4/4/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application

4/4/2019: Ex Parte Application

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For An Order To Continue Trial Fsc Motion And Discovery Cut Off Dates Or Alternatively For An Order To Shorten Time On Hearing For Same Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Declaration Of David A Austin Declaration Of Evelyn Lean) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by State of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Exparte Application For An Order To Continue Trial Fsc Motion And Discovery Cut Off Dates Or Alternatively For An Order To Shorten Time On Hearing For Same Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Declaration Of David A Austin Declaration Of Evelyn Lean); Filed by State of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation And Proposed Order To Continue Trial And All Related Dates); Filed by State of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order To Continue Tria...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (; Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Notice ( of Taking the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Off Calendar); Filed by Esperanza Velarde Sanchez, individually and as successor-in-interest to Jose Luis Osuna, deceased (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • Minute Order ((Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
101 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2017
  • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Los Angeles, County Of (DISMISSED) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Luis Osuna (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE-DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Luis Osuna (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC645500    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Esperanza Velarde Sanchez, individually and as successor-in-interest to Jose Luis Osuna, deceased

OPPOSITION: Non-Party Los Angeles Police Department

On January 17, 2016, Jose Luis Osuna (“Decedent”), was driving northbound on State Route 110. While driving, Decedent was critically injured when a brick was thrown through a hole in the overpass fence by Rudy Simental, Jr., a homeless man. Decedent suffered severe head trauma and died on March 17, 2017. Simenthal was charged and convicted of the crime.

On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff Esperanza Velarde Sanchez (“Plaintiff”), individually and as successor-in-interest to Decedent, sued Defendant Department of Transportation. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff served third-party Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) with a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records. The subpoena sought the production of any and all reports, audiotape interviews, video, and audio recordings, concerning the investigation of Simenthal’s crime.

LAPD produced responsive documents, but the witness information contained within those documents was redacted, i.e., last names and contact information. Plaintiff requested the unredacted information and offered to stipulate to a protective order, but LAPD indicated they would not provide the unredacted information absent a court order.

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to compel LAPD to produce unredacted police reports and audio files, including unredacted 911 calls. On May 8, 2020, LAPD filed an opposition.

Standard: The right to privacy protects an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” Pioneer Electronics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370. Where a serious invasion of the right to privacy is shown, the proponent of the discovery must demonstrate that the information sought is “directly relevant” to a claim or defense, and “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 850; see also Binder v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 893, 901 [holding “direct relevance” requires something more than an assertion that the requested discovery might lead to admissible evidence].) Once direct relevance has been shown, the proponent of discovery must demonstrate that the information sought is not available through less intrusive means. (See Allen v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.) The court must then carefully balance the right to privacy on the one hand and the right of civil litigants to discover facts on the other. (See Pioneer Electronics, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 371.)

Analysis: Plaintiff argues that she has a compelling need for the requested documents and witness information because they are relevant to prove that a dangerous condition on public property existed, the hole in the overpass fence, and that Defendant had prior notice. Plaintiff states that the discovery requested will support Plaintiff’s contention that the overpass did not have adequate fencing to prevent objects from being thrown onto the highway. The discovery request will also provide information about Defendant’s actual notice of the dangerous condition, such as calls made to the California Highway Patrol and the LAPD regarding rocks, bricks and other objects being thrown onto the highway.

Plaintiff cites Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1412, 1417, which involved a class action age discrimination lawsuit by television writers against various networks. The plaintiffs sought personal information from guild members, who were given the opportunity to object to disclosure of the requested information. Several members objected to the disclosure and plaintiff sough to overrule their objections. (Id. at p. 1419.) The Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to order the disclosure of the information. (Id at pp. 1420-1421.) The court found that the information violated the members’ reasonable expectation of privacy but concluded the plaintiffs demonstrated that the information requested was directly relevant to their claims. (Id. at p. 1427.) Plaintiff alleges that she has similarly demonstrated that the information requested is directly relevant to her claims.

LAPD states that Court must apply the framework of Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35. However, LAPD notes that contact information is “personal [but] not particularly sensitive,” and is part of “basic civil discovery.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 125.

The request for the redacted witness information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The witnesses’ information is private, but the information sought by Plaintiff is directly relevant to their claims about the condition of the overpass fence and Defendant’s prior notice. Plaintiff has indicated that she was willing to stipulate to a protective order. The parties are to confer about creating their own order or adopting a standard protective order.

Conclusion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Subpoena for Production of Business Records is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer AUSTIN DAVID A.