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.
****5786
06/20/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
SCULLS JONNY
SCULLS LACEY C.
BAR SINISTER
LOWE TIFFANY
SKOLD TIM
TLABELLE PRODUCTIONS
DOES 1 TO 25
LA BELLE TRICIA
BOARDNERS INC.
SINISTER BAR
SCULLS JONNY
SCULLS LACEY C.
SKOLD TIM
LEE EDWARD Y. ESQ.
LEE EDWARD YOUNG ESQ.
O'MEARA FRANCES ESQ.
ESPINA CLAIRE NAVARRO ESQ.
SHAPIRO MARC STEVEN ESQ.
TAN ARNEL ORDINARIO ESQ.
LEE ANGELA S. ESQ.
NGUYEN HAO THI ESQ.
O'MEARA FRANCES MARY ESQ.
5/11/2018: Unknown
9/11/2018: Unknown
9/11/2018: Unknown
9/11/2018: Unknown
1/22/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
1/22/2019: Supplemental Declaration
2/5/2019: Declaration
2/5/2019: Declaration
3/1/2019: Summons
5/20/2019: Minute Order
5/20/2019: Unknown
5/31/2019: Minute Order
5/31/2019: Ex Parte Application
6/3/2019: Notice
6/13/2019: Notice of Ruling
12/7/2017: FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS
6/20/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) ASSAULT; ETC
6/20/2017: SUMMONS
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Tim Skold (Defendant)
Declaration (Declaration of Angela Lee in Support of application for order for Publication of Summons); Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff)
at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
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
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Tim Skold's Ex Parte ...)); Filed by Clerk
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)
Stipulation and Order (Defendant and Cross-Complainant Tim Skold and Defendant Boardners, Inc's Stipulation re Dismissal); Filed by BOARDNERS, INC. (Cross-Defendant)
Notice (Notice of Orders Issued on May 20, 2019 re Notice of Related Cases); Filed by Tim Skold (Cross-Complainant)
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)
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
DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)
SUMMONS
COMPLAINT FOR: (1) ASSAULT; ETC
Complaint; Filed by Lacey C. Sculls (Plaintiff); Jonny Sculls (Plaintiff)
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.