On 09/29/2017 LEON NAZARI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****7754
09/29/2017
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
NAZARY OFEL
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DOES 1 TO 50
NAZARI LEON
RUBIN MICHAEL PHILIP
HUNT JAMES A. ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL
WHEELER DENNIS KENT
MICHAEL P. RUBIN & ASSOCIATES INC.
1/27/2020: Jury Question
1/27/2020: Jury Question
12/23/2019: Statement of the Case
12/30/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE
12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEY FOR ABUSE OF DISCOVERY
12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
1/14/2020: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) - CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER - PEREMPTORY (170.6) - JUDGE HORN
1/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)
10/28/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
9/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES AND ALL REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES NOT PREVIOUSLY OR TIMELY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
6/3/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO RE...)
4/18/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts
4/29/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
1/9/2019: Opposition - Opposition to Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
1/9/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Dates 6 months
1/12/2018: SUMMONS -
1/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department NE3; Order to Show Cause Re: (Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Leon Nazari (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice (LAUSD's Notice of Entry of Judgment); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)
DocketJudgment ([Proposed] Judgment on Special Verdict); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk
DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Sabryna Beckles re: LAUSD's [Proposed] Judgment); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)
DocketStipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits; Filed by Clerk
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department NE3; Jury Trial - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
DocketJury Question; Filed by Clerk
DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk
DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk
DocketSUMMONS
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
DocketComplaint; Filed by null
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL
Case Number: BC677754 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: 5
leon nazari,
Plaintiff, v.
los angeles unified school district,
Defendant.
|
Case No.: BC677754
Hearing Date: January 14, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: motion for sanctions
|
Plaintiff Leon Nazari (“Plaintiff”) moves for sanctions against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”), alleging abuses of the discovery process. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery” are misuses of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (h).)
Plaintiff raises three issues:
1. Second Site Inspection – Plaintiff alleges that Defendant abused the discovery process by failing to permit Plaintiff to conduct a site inspection of the playground where the accident occurred. However, this was the second site inspection, which Plaintiff sought after the deadline. Regardless of whether Defendant was being “unreasonable,” Defendant had no obligation to permit Plaintiff to conduct a subsequent inspection of the same site, especially after the deadline. (See New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-1428.) Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery, meaning that sanctions are not justified.
2. Opposition to Ex Parte Application – Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with Defendant’s opposition to his ex parte application for a second site inspection. This request is denied. As discussed, Defendant had a meritorious opposition to the application. Regardless, at the hearing Defendant stipulated to permit the inspection. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant unsuccessfully opposed that application.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s characterization that the “ex parte application was essentially granted.” To the contrary, the Court had concerns whether it had authority to order a site inspection by way of ex parte application. (See St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 82, 85.) Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions simply because the Court mediated the discovery dispute, leading to a stipulation.
3. Missed Deposition – Finally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions because Defendant’s trial counsel, Mr. Dennis Wheeler, failed to appear for the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Jacob Tauber. The deposition was scheduled for December 17, 2019. The day before the deposition, on December 16, 2019, at 9:17 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel via email that Dr. Tauber’s deposition would be taken off-calendar because he was in the hospital with pneumonia. (Declaration of Michael P. Ruben, ¶ 16.) Defendant’s in-house counsel, Ms. Sabryna Beckles, and Mr. Wheeler both confirmed receipt of the email that the deposition would not go forward. (Ibid.) Then, Dr. Tauber recovered sufficiently to go forward with the deposition, and Plaintiff’s counsel alerted Ms. Beckles. (Id., ¶ 17.) At 2:37 p.m., Ms. Beckles’ secretary informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the deposition could go forward as originally scheduled. (Id., ¶ 18.) However, Mr. Wheeler did not appear. According to Ms. Beckles, she advised Mr. Wheeler via email. (Declaration of Sabryna D. Beckles, ¶ 14.) Ms. Beckles called Mr. Wheeler when he did not appear that morning, and he indicated that because Plaintiff’s counsel indicated there was a “sudden hospitalization,” he did not think the deposition would go forward. (Id., ¶ 16.) The Court finds that both parties are responsible for the confusion resulting in Mr. Wheeler’s failure to appear at the deposition. Therefore, an award of sanctions to Plaintiff would be unjust.
4. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions – Defendant requests sanctions for opposing the instant motion. The Court declines to award sanctions to Defendant, finding that both parties are responsible for the discovery disputes at issue, and an award of sanctions to Defendant (just like an award of sanctions to Plaintiff) would be unjust.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: January 14, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court