This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:58:21 (UTC).

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK VS MEDICAL DEPOT INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/01/2017 KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against MEDICAL DEPOT INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2049

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FOSBROOK KARN DENISE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

MEDICAL HOME REHAB INC

MEDICAL DEPOT INC

DOES 1 TO 100

HL CORP USA

Defendant and Cross Defendant

HL CORP USA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GRASSINI LAWRENCE P. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

MARSHALL MATTHEW L. ESQ.

WILLIAMSON IAN

Cross Defendant Attorney

GROSS JAMIE LEIGH

 

Court Documents

Opposition

6/17/2019: Opposition

Reply

6/21/2019: Reply

Notice

6/27/2019: Notice

Cross-Complaint

7/11/2019: Cross-Complaint

Response

7/18/2019: Response

Declaration

7/18/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

7/22/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/23/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

7/29/2019: Answer

Minute Order

7/30/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

7/31/2019: Declaration

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

7/31/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order

8/1/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Firm Name

2/26/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

3/19/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Separate Statement

4/3/2019: Separate Statement

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

5/14/2019: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

11/1/2017: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Final Status Conference and Trial Continuance); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial and Related Dates) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and Related...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (To Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Of Jamie L. Gross in Support of Defendant's Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial Date, Trial Related Deadlines); Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by HL Corp (USA) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by MEDICAL HOME REHAB INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by MEDICAL DEPOT INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by KARN DENISE FOSBROOK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682049    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KAREN DENISE FOSBROOK,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MEDICAL DEPOT, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC682049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 31, 2019

The parties have had ongoing issues with Defendant’s responses to RPDs for some time now. At this time, only one issue remains between the parties: Defendant’s response to RPD 12.

RPD 12, as narrowed by the parties through meet and confer efforts, asks for documents that discuss, concern, or relate to any incidents of personal injury caused or alleged to have been caused by the model knee walker for a period of five years before the subject incident through the present.

Prior to the filing of this motion for sanctions, Defendant’s most recent response to the RPD stated that Defendant would produce all responsive documents to the extent they exist. Defendant did not produce any documents.

Plaintiff filed this motion, correctly noting the response was not code-compliant. CCP §2031.230 governs responses to RPDs when there are no responsive documents to produce. It provides, in pertinent part:

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand … shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. …

Defendant, realizing its response was not code-compliant, served another supplemental response to the demand after Plaintiff filed this motion. Defendant’s current response states, “…limiting the response to five years before the incident through the present, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant is not in possession, custody, or control of any documents regarding prior complaints of personal injury involving any issue similar to that alleged by plaintiff because no such documents exist.”

Plaintiff, in reply, correctly notes that nothing in the current iteration of RPD 12 limits production to prior “similar” incidents. The RPD seeks production of documents relating to ANY incident. Notably, it is for Plaintiff, not Defendant (as well as the trial court in connection with motions in limine), to determine if a prior issue is sufficiently similar to warrant presentation of evidence and argument at trial concerning the prior incident. This is not for Defendant to unilaterally decide.

Plaintiff also, in reply, voices concerns that Defendant’s opposition consistently refers to prior “complaints” about the model knee walker. While Defendant’s current response is not limited to prior “complaints,” Plaintiff is correct that the RPD does not only ask for production of prior “complaints,” but instead for production of “documents that discuss, concern, or relate to” the subject model knee walker.

Imposition of issue sanctions is extremely harsh. The Court notes that it has not, previously, imposed monetary sanctions, which is typically a prerequisite to imposition of issue sanctions. The Court is extremely concerned that Defendant is not honoring its discovery obligations. However, because there have been no prior monetary sanctions, and because issue sanctions are extremely harsh, the Court is inclined to continue the hearing on this motion for one month. The hearing is continued to Friday, 11/29/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Notably, trial is not scheduled until 1/22/20.

The Court orders Defendant to serve a fully code-compliant response, with the above discussion in mind, within one week. If the response is code-complaint, the Court asks Plaintiff to take this motion off calendar. If Plaintiff believes the response remains deficient, each party must file a brief concerning the status of the response and the request for sanctions at least one week prior to the continued hearing date. The parties must provide a courtesy copy of the brief directly to the department.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.