This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:51:32 (UTC).

LACEY C SCULLS ET AL VS TIFFANY LOWE ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/20/2017 LACEY C SCULLS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TIFFANY LOWE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5786

  • Filing Date:

    06/20/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

SCULLS JONNY

SCULLS LACEY C.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

BAR SINISTER

LOWE TIFFANY

SKOLD TIM

TLABELLE PRODUCTIONS

DOES 1 TO 25

LA BELLE TRICIA

BOARDNERS INC.

SINISTER BAR

SCULLS JONNY

SCULLS LACEY C.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

SKOLD TIM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LEE EDWARD Y. ESQ.

LEE EDWARD YOUNG ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

O'MEARA FRANCES ESQ.

ESPINA CLAIRE NAVARRO ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SHAPIRO MARC STEVEN ESQ.

TAN ARNEL ORDINARIO ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorneys

LEE ANGELA S. ESQ.

NGUYEN HAO THI ESQ.

Other Attorneys

O'MEARA FRANCES MARY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

5/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/11/2018: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

1/22/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Supplemental Declaration

1/22/2019: Supplemental Declaration

Declaration

2/5/2019: Declaration

Declaration

2/5/2019: Declaration

Summons

3/1/2019: Summons

Minute Order

5/20/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

5/20/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

5/31/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

5/31/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

6/3/2019: Notice

Notice of Ruling

6/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS

12/7/2017: FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) ASSAULT; ETC

6/20/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) ASSAULT; ETC

SUMMONS

6/20/2017: SUMMONS

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Tim Skold (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Angela Lee in Support of application for order for Publication of Summons); Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and Related Discovery and Motion Dates, or in the Alternative, for An Order Specially Setting and Shortening Time for Hearing on a Motion for Same) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Tim Skold's Ex Parte ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and Related Discovery and Motion Dates, or in the Alternative, for An Order Specially Setting and Shortening Time for Hearing on a Motion for Same); Filed by Tim Skold (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Defendant and Cross-Complainant Tim Skold and Defendant Boardners, Inc's Stipulation re Dismissal); Filed by BOARDNERS, INC. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Orders Issued on May 20, 2019 re Notice of Related Cases); Filed by Tim Skold (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Hearing and Orders Issued on May 31, 2019 re Tim Skold's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Tim Skold (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For An Order to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 09/07/2017
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) ASSAULT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665786    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 29

Sculls et al. v. Lowe et al.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Sign Authorizations Re: Written Release of their Psychological Records; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. Defendant has not cited any authority that gives the Court discretion to require Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. The Court cannot create new methods of discovery that are not set forth in the Discovery Act. The Court’s powers are limited by the express language of the Act.

In Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, the court refused to order a body exhumed for purposes of autopsy finding no legal authority in the statutory discovery scheme to so order “in the absence of express statutory language … .” Holm at 1248-1249.

The Holm court held that “in the area of civil discovery, the judiciary has no power to create or sanction types or methods of discovery not based on a reasonable interpretation of statutory provisions.” Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1247.

Similarly, in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 840, the court concluded that a trial court could not issue an order permitting the plaintiffs to conduct informal interviews of Defendant’s employees while inspecting Defendant’s premises, as no statute in the Discovery Act provided for such a method of discovery. Id. at 849.

California courts have declined to permit discovery not authorized by the Legislature in the Discovery Act. Thus, in Edmiston v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 699, the court declined to permit videotaping of a medical examination, holding it was not affirmatively authorized by the Legislature, and whether it was permissible was an issue for the Legislature to determine. Id. at 704.

Defendant may well be entitled to production of these records either through a subpoena served on Mindia Gabichvadze, Psy.D. or, to the extent the records are in the “control” of Plaintiffs, through a request for the production of documents served on Plaintiffs. Those issues are not before the Court, and the Court therefore does not rule on them.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.