On 05/08/2018 JOSE TAPIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against INTERSTATE NON-FERROUS CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
EDWARD B. MORETON
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
INTERSTATE NON-FERROUS CORPORATION
RABINEAU LARRY ESQ.
SANTA-ROMANA MARK VILAR III
3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020
3/4/2020: [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
2/14/2020: [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
12/26/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY DECLARATION TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
12/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WIT...)
1/2/2020: Notice of Ruling
12/17/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODING
12/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT INTERSTATE NONFERROUS CORP. S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JOSE TAPIAS MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; MEMORANUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MARK SANTA ROMANA
11/27/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVER; DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA NARIAN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; PROPOSED ORDER
11/27/2019: Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS LIST; DECLARATION OF LARRY RABINEAU; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE
10/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
10/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND CONTINUE TRIAL DATE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TOME TO SPECIALLY SET A MOTION
10/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIF...)
11/15/2018: Demand for Jury Trial
11/15/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
11/16/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service of Summons
5/8/2018: SUMMONS -
5/8/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY 2. NEGLIGENCE
Hearing01/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/17/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (to Ex Parte Application for Leave to Augment Plaintiff's Expert Witness List and to Continue Trial); Filed by Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for leave to augment plaintif...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation (Defendant); One-Stop Recycling (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Jose Tapia (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Tapia (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY 2. NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC705559 Hearing Date: December 30, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
Motion to Reopen Discovery
On May 8, 2018, plaintiff Jose Tapia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Interstate Non-Ferrous Corporation dba One-Stop Recycling (“Defendant”) relating to an accident at a recycling site involving a forklift driven by Defendant’s employee. Plaintiff seeks leave to reopen discovery to take the depositions of Defendant’s two expert, the driver of the forklift, and Defendant’s person most qualified on safety policy and procedure. This motion was set for hearing on December 31, 2019, but will be heard with Plaintiff’s other motion on December 30, 2019.
Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.) The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)
Plaintiff’s counsel states she was on maternity leave beginning in October 2018, was overwhelmed when she returned to work in May 2019, and had trouble obtaining childcare in July and August 2019, causing her to neglect sending out notices of deposition before the close of discovery on October 18, 2019. Trial is currently set for February 7, 2019, after the Court continued it from November 18, 2019.
Counsel’s explanation is somewhat lacking because there appears to be no reason why the other attorney in her firm could not have handled the case while she was out and overwhelmed. However, the deposition Plaintiff wishes to take are central to the case and can be accomplished with a brief trial continuance. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, trial is continued to March 6, 2020. The Final Status Conference is continued to February 21, 2020. The fact and expert discovery cutoff dates are based on the new trial date.
Motion to Augment Expert Witness List
On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff received Defendant’s demand for expert witness exchange with a September 19, 2019 exchange date. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel received Defendant’s expert designation listing Nicholas Yang, who is an engineer, and Dr. Phillip Yuan. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff served his expert designation identifying only an orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff did not serve a supplemental designation. Plaintiff states that because Defendant served its expert designation ten days early, Plaintiff did not realize the deadline to serve a supplemental designation was also ten days early than Plaintiff expected.
Realizing the mistake, on October 14, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel asked defense counsel to agree to a designation deadline of October 15, 2019, informed defense counsel that Plaintiff intended to designate Brad Avrit to respond to Nicholas Yang, and stated Avrit was available for a deposition forthwith. Defense counsel responded that Avrit does not have the appropriate expertise to address the subject to be covered by Yang. On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to augment his expert witness list attaching the proposed designation of Avrit, which was denied because Plaintiff needed to file a noticed motion. Plaintiff filed this motion on November 27, 2019.
On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to augment that party’s expert witness list. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a).) This motion shall be made a sufficient time in advance to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken before the discovery cut-off, unless exceptional circumstances exist. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (b).) The court shall grant leave to augment an expert witness list only if all of the conditions in Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 are satisfied. Here, in effect, Plaintiff is asking to reopen the time to designate a supplemental expert, rather than to augment his original expert witness list.
Plaintiff promptly tried to remedy his counsel’s mistake by asking Defendant to stipulate to the new deadline and then filing an ex parte application, serving the proposed expert witness information, and stating the expert was available for a deposition. Plaintiff showed less diligence in waiting a month to file this motion after the ex parte application was denied.
Defendant argues it relied on Plaintiff’s expert list and will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to designate Avrit because Plaintiff proposes to have Avrit testify on a completely different subject matter than Yang. According to Defendant, Yang will testify “there is no mechanism for Plaintiff’s alleged neck injury,” (Opp., p. 5), while Plaintiff has designated Avrit to testify “as to the condition of the subject facility, including but not limited to construction, design, warnings, safety procedures, protocols and/or measures and lack thereof and standard of care.” (Ibid.) Defendant contends that if Avrit is allowed to testify on those subjects, Defendant will need retain a new expert on those subjects.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.280, subdivision (a), within 20 days of the initial exchange, Plaintiff could have submitted a supplemental expert witness list identify “any experts who will express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party.” Plaintiff states he wishes leave to designate Avrit as a supplemental expert on the subjects covered by Yang. Defendant’s designation of Yang identifies both specific and general subject matters. Specifically, Yang will testify on “the area of biomechanics of injury and human injury tolerance and associated test criteria.” (Def. Expert Witness Designation, p. 3.) More broadly, Defendant states Yang “will testify about the issue of liability, causation and damages” and “may testify concerning all related issues within his area of expertise.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff contends Avrit will testify on the subjects of liability, causation, and biomechanical aspects. (Mot., p. 10.) In fact, Plaintiff’s designation states Avrit will testify “as to the condition the [sic] the subject facility, including but not limited to construction, design, warnings, safety procedure, protocols and/or measures and lack thereof and standard of care [and] causation and biomechanical aspects of this accident.” (Supp. Designation of Expert Witnesses, pp. 4-5.)
If Defendant intends Yang to testify only on “the area of biomechanics of injury and human injury tolerance and associated test criteria,” then Avrit’s testimony shall be limited to those subjects. The other subjects listed in Plaintiff’s supplemental designation of Avrit are outside the proper supplemental subject matter. But if Defendant intends Yang to testify more broadly about “liability, causation and damages,” than Avrit too can testify more broadly. Defendant is to be prepared at the hearing to identify the specific subjects on which Yang will testify. Defendant will not be prejudiced by Avrit’s designation because the scope of Yang’s subjects will be the scope of Avrit’s subjects, and Defendant will have no need for another expert to respond to Avrit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is file his supplemental expert witness list within 5 days of the date of this Order and to make Avrit available for a deposition within 5 days after the date of Yang’s deposition or on a date agreed to by the parties.
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.