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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
OSUNA JOSE LUIS
SANCHEZ ESPERANZA VELARDE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO JOSE LUIS OSUNA DECEASED
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF
CALIFORNIA STATE OF
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIMENTAL RUDY JR.
CARRILLO LUIS A. ESQ.
CARRILLO MICHAEL SANTINO ESQ.
ALBRIGHT YEE & SCHMIT LLP
AUSTIN DAVID ALLEN
10/5/2018: Other -
10/11/2018: Minute Order
10/24/2018: Minute Order
4/4/2019: Stipulation and Order
4/4/2019: Minute Order
4/4/2019: Notice of Ruling
4/4/2019: Ex Parte Application
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 GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by State of California (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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
Stipulation and Order (Stipulation And Proposed Order To Continue Trial And All Related Dates); Filed by State of California (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order To Continue Tria...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:45 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
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 PartyRead MoreRead Less
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
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Los Angeles, County Of (DISMISSED) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Luis Osuna (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE-DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTYRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Jose Luis Osuna (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases