This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 07:18:08 (UTC).

LORELI RAMSAY LEVY VS NKAB-III LP ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/15/2018 LORELI RAMSAY LEVY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NKAB-III LP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY, HUEY P. COTTON and VIRGINIA KEENY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4299

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

HUEY P. COTTON

VIRGINIA KEENY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LEVY LORELI RAMSAY

Defendants and Respondents

VANTAGE ONCOLOGY TREATMENT CENTERS-SHERMA

NKAB-III LP

VALLEY RADIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES MEDICAL

DOES 1 TO 50

MCKESSON SPECIALTY HEALTH INNOVATIVE

WE SERVICE AMERICA INC. DOE 1

SKYLINE UROLOGY CROP. DOE 2

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ZEESMAN ALEXANDER J. ESQ.

MALEKSAEEDI SAHAR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

COX SCOTT A. ESQ.

HEWITT & TRUSZKOWSKI

ASEL COLETTE MARIA

DOLAN MICHAEL

HEWITT STEPHEN LEWIS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING WITH THE COURT DEPOSITION CONDENSED TRANSCRIPTS OF VANTAGE PMQ MICHELLE RUSSO, VOLUMES 1 THROUGH 3

9/29/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING WITH THE COURT DEPOSITION CONDENSED TRANSCRIPTS OF VANTAGE PMQ MICHELLE RUSSO, VOLUMES 1 THROUGH 3

Notice - NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

9/25/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

9/14/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION, SUPPLEMENTAL TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ VANTAGE

8/31/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION, SUPPLEMENTAL TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ VANTAGE

Case Management Statement

8/7/2020: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON 7/9/2020

7/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON 7/9/2020

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER COURT-ORDERED DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED

7/7/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER COURT-ORDERED DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED

Notice of Case Management Conference

7/13/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING

4/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

2/24/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT MOTIONS FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

2/26/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT MOTIONS FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

Declaration - DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/15/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARISSA FEINSTEIN RE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE AND GIVE NOTICE ETC

12/12/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARISSA FEINSTEIN RE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE AND GIVE NOTICE ETC

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/17/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance

2/15/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance

Complaint -

2/15/2018: Complaint -

119 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/24/2021
  • Hearing03/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • Hearing11/23/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Hearing11/16/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • Hearing11/12/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for an order authorizing release of Plaintiff?s psychiatric records

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Vantage Oncology's PMK Deposition #4) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) (By Def) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) By Def; Hearing on Motion...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
183 More Docket Entries
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Loreli Ramsay Levy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694299    Hearing Date: September 14, 2020    Dept: W

LORELI Ramsay levy v. nkab-iii lp

DEFENDANT UNITED FACILY SOLUTIONS, INC.’s motion for relief from waiver

Date of Hearing: September 14, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: BC694299

Moving Party: Defendant UNITED FACILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. dba WE SERVICE AMERICA

Responding Party: Plaintiff Loreli Ramsay Levy

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff alleges on February 17, 2017, she was walking on the sidewalk when a branch from Defendants' tree collapsed and fell on Plaintiff, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain serious injury. Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the premises where the tree fell on her.

On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Nkab-Iii Lp, Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers-Sherman Oaks, Inc., Valley Radiotherapy Associates Medical Group, Inc., and McKesson Specialty Health Innovative Practice Services, LLC asserting causes of action for 1) Negligence and 2) Premises Liability.

Defendant United Facility Solutions was brought in as Doe Defendant, allegedly because it was responsible for tree care on the subject property.

Subsequently, on January 21, 2020, Plaintiff served written Discovery upon Defendant United, including form interrogatories. Based on an agreed upon extension, defendant United served written responses on March 6, 2020. Although plaintiff had requested that United provide responses to the series 50 form interrogatories, the written responses did not include answers to those questions. Defendant United now moves for relief from waiver, explaining that it made a mistake and did not see those questions when preparing its response. Further, United contends that if has now provided compliant responses. Plaintiff opposes the motion, contending that the responses ultimately provided were not “in substantial compliance” with the discovery code, as they were not verified and they contained only baseless objections.

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.90 states in pertinent part: "If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (I) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. 22 (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect."

In the instant case, defendant United has established entitlement to relief under Section 2030.90. It explained that the failure to respond to the interrogatories at issue was based on an oversight by the party and counsel. Further, United has provided responses which are substantially compliant. There was no requirement that the responses be verified, as they contained only objections. In this personal injury action, there was no contract alleged in the complaint or the answer by United. Accordingly, the written response that the interrogatories are inapplicable is a reasonable one, and fully compliant with the defendant’s obligations under the discovery code. If plaintiff wants to discover more about United’s duties and obligations under any contract United may have had with the other defendants, plaintiff can tailor special interrogatories and document requests specifically addressing those agreements.

Motion for Relief from Waiver is granted.

LORELI RAMSAY LEVY VS NKAB-III LP ET AL

plaintiff’s motion TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT VANTAGE ONCOLOGY TREATMENT CENTERS-SHERMAN OAKS, INC.’S PMQ

Date of Hearing:  September 14, 2020 Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:    W Case No.: BC694299

Motion to Compel Production and Further Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiff Loreli Ramsay Levi

Responding Party:      Defendants Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers – Sherman Oaks, Inc. and McKesson Specialty Health Innovative Practice Services, LLC

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff alleges on February 17, 2017, she was walking on the sidewalk when a branch from Defendants' tree collapsed and fell on Plaintiff, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain serious injury. Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the premises where the tree fell on her.

On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Nkab-III LP, Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers-Sherman Oaks, Inc., Valley Radiotherapy Associates Medical Group, Inc., and McKesson Specialty Health Innovative Practice Services, LLC, asserting causes of action for 1) Negligence and 2) Premises Liability.

On July 7, 2020, the instant matter was transferred to this court.  

[Tentative] Ruling

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production and Further Deposition of Defendant Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers-Sherman Oaks, Inc.’s PMQ or in the alternative, for an Order Re: Spoilation of Evidence, and for and Request for Monetary Sanctions is Denied.

DISCUSSION

 

 

Plaintiff Loreli Levy moves to compel the further production of documents for Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers-Sherman Oaks, Inc. (“Vantage”). Specifically, Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling production of video footage showing the incident and injury as it occurred, which was acknowledged to be in the custody and possession of Vantage’s by their person(s) most qualified. Plaintiff also moves this court for an order compelling further deposition of Defendant’s PMQ so that Plaintiff may ask questions regarding the video, or lack of video.

Defendant opposes the motion, claiming that it has already produced Ms. Russo three times as its PMQ, that plaintiff has had an adequate opportunity to examine her on the whereabouts, destruction, and efforts to locate the second video apparently taken by its former employee, Ms. Delgardo and that it has adequately responded to the document request.   

The court notes that based on counsel’s own declarations, counsel for plaintiff have known since at least May 28, 2018 about the email between Themani Delgado and Michelle Russo on Friday February 17, 2017, indicating that there was a video which captured the video of the branch as it broke off.  (Declaration of Justin Rabi, ¶ 4.)  Perhaps the date is erroneous, and plaintiffs’ counsel intended to say May 28, 2019.  In any event, plaintiffs counsel had the information about the video when it took the third deposition of Ms. Russo on December 19, 2019.  At that time, plaintiff had full opportunity to question her about defendant's receipt of a video of the falling tree limb from Thamani Delgardo; defendant's review of the video, circumstances of its temporary viewing and release of the video; defendant's communications with Ms. Delgardo about the whereabouts or existence of the video; defendant's procedures for investigating injuries and other incidents on the property, including how evidence and videos are received, maintained, disposed of.  Plaintiff have not presented any evidence that Ms. Russo refused to answer those questions.  The  court sees no grounds for ordering a fourth day of deposition of the PMQ on these or related issues. 

Apparently, on April 26, 2019, plaintiff served a Second Amended Notice of the Person Most Qualified with a request to produce documents.  Plaintiff represents that defendants did not serve a written response, and did not produce any or some of the documents sought.  Because of the inadequacy of the Separate Statement, the court is confounded as to what was produced, whether objections were placed on the record, or what actually has transpired during the year and a half since the demand was served.  If the document requests are duplicative of other requests that were responded to by defendant, the court will deny the motion for further responses.  Either plaintiff has preserved the ability to move to compel on those other requests, or it has not.  Plaintiff cannot replicate questions as to which it has not preserved the right to compel.  If any of the requests are unique to the Second Amended Notice to Produce referenced above, the court will hear argument about how to proceed.  If defendant has not produced a privilege log, listing the document which has been withheld, it must do so within 15 days of this hearing. 

Sanctions

Plaintiff also moves this court for an Order of monetary sanctions as against Defendant in the amount of $3,210.00 for the failure and refusal to preserve and produce vital evidence at the duly noticed deposition and produce documents, failure to reasonable meet and confer in an effective and swift manner and essentially requiring Plaintiff to file this motion with the court.  The request for sanctions is denied.  The court finds defendant’s position substantially justified as to refusing a fourth day of deposition of its PMQ on these issues.  As for the document requests, if the court cannot determine what is at issue and what the response has been, the court cannot impose sanctions on a defendant who is equally confused.  If the video was destroyed after receiving a request from plaintiff’s counsel to preserve evidence, plaintiff can seek an appropriate jury instruction at the time of trial.  There is no evidence before this court that the video was deliberately destroyed. 

Case Number: BC694299    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 28

Case Name:  Levy v. NKAB-III LP, et al.  Case No.:  BC694299

Hearing Date: March 12, 2020Trial Date: July 20, 2020

Motions:

(1) Motion to Compel PMQ Deposition

(2) Motion to Compel Further

The court considered the motion and opposition papers

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff Loreli Ramsay Levy (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 1, 2018, Defendant NKAB-III LP (“NKAB”) filed an answer to the complaint, as well as, a cross-complaint. 

On May 10, 2018, Defendants Vantage Oncology Treatment Centers – Sherman Oaks, Inc. (“Vantage Oncology”) and McKesson Specialty Health Innovative Practice Services, LLC (“McKesson”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On May 22, 2018, Defendant Valley Radiotherapy Associates Medical Group Inc. (“Valley Radiotherapy”) filed an answer to the complaint. 

On August 24, 2018, NKAB filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing its cross-complaint.

On June 19, 2019, Defendant Skyline Urology (“Skyline”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On September 11, 2019, Defendant United Facility Solutions, Inc. dba We Service America (“United”) filed an answer to the complaint.

REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests an order compelling the deposition of Vantage Oncology’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”).  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Vantage Oncology in the amount of $3,210.00. 

[The court’s calendar states there is also a motion to compel further set for hearing on the same day.]

LEGAL STANDARD (MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)

C.C.P. §2025.450 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)¿If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(b)¿A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1)¿The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2)¿The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance

***

(g)¿

(1)¿If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

C.C.P. §2025.480 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)¿If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b)¿This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(c)¿Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.

***

(j)¿The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

DISCUSSION

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition of Vantage Oncology’s PMQ. Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Vantage Oncology in the amount of $3,210.00.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Vantage Oncology’s PMQ is moot

The court’s February 3, 2020 Minute Order states: “Defendant will produce the person most qualified for deposition on a mutually convenient date. The person most qualified will produce the requested documents five days prior to the deposition either by personal delivery or e-service.” (Court’s 2/3/20 Minute Order.) 

Vantage Oncology represents the PMQ has been deposed three times – March 20, 2019, May 7, 2019, and December 19, 2019, Plaintiff has not filed a motion to compel a fourth deposition and production of documents, and counsel offered to produce an out-of-state former employee (Ms. Delgado) for deposition on multiple occasions, but Plaintiff’s attorney refused to depose her. (3/6/20 Opposition, pgs. 2-10.) (3/6/20 Opposition, Declaration of Feinstein ¶¶2-26; Exhibits A-F.) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied for two reasonsFirst, Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not contain a request for evidentiary sanctions. (See C.C.P. §2023.040.) Second, the imposition of (monetary or evidentiary) sanctions would be unjust in light of the following: (1) Plaintiff unilaterally set the deposition date; (2) Vantage Oncology agreed to produce the PMQ on a mutually agreeable date; (3) lack of sufficient meet and confer; and (3) Vantage Oncology’s production of the PMQ(s) for deposition (on three occasions). (Declaration of Zeesman ¶¶3-6; Exhibits B-D.) (Declaration of Feinstein ¶¶2-10; Exhibit 1.) (3/6/20 Opposition, Declaration of Feinstein ¶¶2-26; Exhibits A-F.) 

(2) MOTIONS TO COMPEL & COMPEL FURTHER

As a preliminary matter, Skyline filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production (Set One), along with requests for sanctions. Skyline also filed a motion to deem Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted against Plaintiff, along with a request for sanctions. On February 26, 2020, Skyline filed notices taking the motions off-calendar.

There is a motion to compel further calendared for hearing on March 12, 2020.  However, it  does not appear that Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further that is set for hearing on March 12, 2020.

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of video recording incident and further deposition of Vantage Oncology’s PMQ (or in the alternative for an order re: spoliation of evidence and request for monetary sanctions), set for hearing on September 18, 2019. On September 17, 2019, the court ordered Plaintiff, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, to take the motion off-calendar. The court also ordered the deposition to be taken on a mutually agreeable date - to be completed by November 30, 2019. (Court’s September 17, 2019 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s motion was taken off-calendar by the court on September 18, 2019. (Declaration of Feinstein ¶12; Exhibit F.)

Plaintiff served a Notice of an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) set for February 3, 2020, relating to written discovery issued to NKAB. (Declaration of Feinstein ¶3.) Plaintiff has not served any actual motions to compel the written discovery, but reserved a hearing date on motions to compel, which the court advanced to March 12, 2020. (Declaration of Feinstein ¶3.) On February 3, 2020, counsel participated in the IDC. The parties resolved several issues during the IDC, and NKAB agreed to provide supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories 3.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.2, 15.1, and 17.1, all Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Production Demand.  (Declaration of Feinstein ¶4.) NKAB served amended responses on February 14, 2020, pursuant to the court’s order. (Declaration of Feinstein ¶¶4-10; Exhibits A-E.) NKAB contends Plaintiff filed to notify the court of their timely receipt of the amended discovery responses and should have taken any alleged motions off-calendar. (Declaration of Feinstein ¶¶14-15.) 

The court’s February 3, 2020 Minute Order refers to a motion to compel further that was scheduled for March 12, 2020, and advanced and continued to March 12, 2020. (Court’s February 3, 2020 Minute Order.) The court specially set the motion to compel further for hearing at 1:30 p.m., so that it could be held at the same time as the motion to compel deposition. (Court’s February 3, 2020 Minute Order.) It does not appear that Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further and/or there is a pending motion to compel further.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion to compel further is taken off-calendar. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Vantage Oncology’s PMQ is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied. 

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is taken off-calendar.