This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/09/2020 at 07:45:35 (UTC).

LEONOR LOPEZ VS THE BICYCLE CASINO INC

Case Summary

On 02/23/2018 LEONOR LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against THE BICYCLE CASINO INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5264

  • Filing Date:

    02/23/2018

  • 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 Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOPEZ LEONOR

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

THE BICYCLE CASINO INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LOPEZ OCTAVIO P. ESQ.

BOCKMAN HENRY W.

Defendant Attorney

AGHAKHANI BRYAN SHANT

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #3

3/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

3/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

Statement of the Case

3/13/2020: Statement of the Case

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Summary of the Case

3/16/2020: Summary of the Case

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #3

3/16/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #3

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

12/20/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

Motion for Protective Order

10/11/2019: Motion for Protective Order

[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

10/3/2019: [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

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

9/3/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY RE DEFENDANT'S MTN TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

9/3/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY RE DEFENDANT'S MTN TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

8/28/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Substitution of Attorney

7/29/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

8/5/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION, REQUEST TO DISMISS

8/6/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION, REQUEST TO DISMISS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT THE BICYCLE CASINO LP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CON...)

8/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT THE BICYCLE CASINO LP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CON...)

Substitution of Attorney

5/30/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6/13/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2021
  • Hearing05/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • Hearing04/23/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • Hearing02/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • Docketat 3:52 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/21/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
41 More Docket Entries
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial, All related Dates, and to Shorten Time for Defendant's Motion to Re-open Discovery); Filed by The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (Motion to Re-Open Fact Disc); Filed by The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketDisassociation of Attorney; Filed by Octavio Pedro Lopez, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketCOMPLALNT FOR DAMAGES: UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE FOR STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF DUTY TO WARN AND BREACH OF WARRANTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695264    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Protective Order

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff Leonor Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant The Bicycle Casino LP (“Defendant”) alleging strict products liability, negligence, a breach of a duty to warn, and a breach of warranty for cracking a tooth when eating an ice cream sundae.

On October 11, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420.

Trial is set for January 13, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court for a protective order precluding Plaintiff’s son, Hugo Lopez, from attending Plaintiff’s deposition and aiding communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel at the Plaintiff’s deposition.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $9,360 in sanctions against Defendant’s counsel to cover the costs of opposing this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move for a protective order before, during, or after a deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter outside of court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).)

The burden is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever relief is requested. Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in the discovery procedure clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)

The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions against whichever party loses on the motion for protective order unless it finds that party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(d).)

DISCUSSION

On September 4, 2019, Defendant served an amended notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition on September 18, 2019 by U.S. mail.  (Aghakhani Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 3.)  Plaintiff insisted on his son, Hugo Lopez, being present at Plaintiff’s deposition to facilitate communications between Plaintiff and his counsel.  (Aghakhani Decl., 2, Exh. 2; Bockman Decl.)  Plaintiff only speaks Spanish, Plaintiff’s counsel speaks very little Spanish, and Plaintiff’s son speaks fluent English and Spanish.  (Opposition, p. 4:12-4:17.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s opposition was improperly served by email because Defendant has not accepted electronic service.  This argument is flawed.  Generally, a party must serve and accept service of documents electronically where, as here, electronic filing is mandatory.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251, subd. (c)(3); see also Local Rule 3.4, subd. (a).)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s opposition was untimely served because it was emailed on October 28, 2019, which is eight court-days prior to the November 7, 2019 hearing.  Defendant is correct.  The opposition must have been served at least nine court days prior to the hearing, which is October 25, 2019.  That said, in light of Defendant’s ability to file a reply to the opposition, which reply has been considered by the Court, the Court finds that the late service of the opposition has not prejudiced Defendant and, thus, addresses the merits of the parties’ dispute.  

Court finds the requested protective order is partially proper.  Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s claim that Hugo Lopez is not a certified interpreter pursuant to Government Code section 68561.  As such, Hugo Lopez may not facilitate communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel during Plaintiff’s deposition.  This facilitation is the job of the certified interpreter.

Nevertheless, Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition is essential for Plaintiff’s communication with Plaintiff’s counsel during recess of the deposition.  This will provide Hugo Lopez with an adequate context to efficiently and effectively allow Plaintiff and his counsel to communicate with one another.  These communications would be less seamless if Hugo Lopez were to be excluded from the deposition.  This is because a significant portion of the breaks would be spent asking clarifying questions.

Further, Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition would not prejudice any party so long as Hugo Lopez is not permitted to communicate with any party during the deposition.  His presence would be merely to obtain a familiarity with the terminology and subjects of discussion in order to help Plaintiff and his counsel communicate with one another while off the record.

Defendant is correct that a protective order may be appropriate to prevent Hugo Lopez from speaking during Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff is correct, however, in that Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary to allow Plaintiff to communicate effectively with Plaintiff’s counsel during breaks in Plaintiff’s deposition.  As such, an imposition of sanctions against either party would be unjust.

The motion is GRANTED in part.

Hugo Lopez may be present at Plaintiff’s deposition and facilitate communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel while off-record.

Hugo Lopez is ordered to not communicate with any person while Plaintiff’s deposition is being conducted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.