This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2020 at 12:15:41 (UTC).

MICHAEL DEL ORBE VS MCDONALDS CORP

Case Summary

On 11/17/2017 MICHAEL DEL ORBE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MCDONALDS CORP. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4029

  • Filing Date:

    11/17/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ORBE MICHAEL DEL

Defendants and Respondents

MCDONALDS CORPORATION

DOES 1 TO 50

M. PERNECKY MANAGEMENT CORP. A

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELLIS ANDREW L. ESQ.

ELLIS LAW CORPORATION

ELLIS ANDREW LAWRENCE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MOSS BRIAN T. ESQ.

MANNING KASS ELLROD RAMIREZ TRESTER LLP

HARLAN ROBERT SCOTT

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

4/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Motion

4/2/2020: Notice of Motion

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S RETAINED EXPERT DR. MERATI, WITH REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

6/25/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S RETAINED EXPERT DR. MERATI, WITH REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Separate Statement

7/2/2020: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

7/2/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/07/2020

7/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/07/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DE...)

7/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DE...)

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES OR REOPEN DISCOVERY

8/25/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES OR REOPEN DISCOVERY

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/10/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDU...)

7/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDU...)

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

3/19/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

1/11/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Opposition - Opposition Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant's Employee Chris Elliot

2/1/2019: Opposition - Opposition Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant's Employee Chris Elliot

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/31/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

2/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

4/16/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

11/17/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/08/2021
  • Hearing10/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • Hearing09/24/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE FOR GOOD CAUSE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ((Jennifer Spee Fonseca CSR# 12840)); Filed by M. Pernecky Management Corp., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR, IN THE...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketReply (reply to opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel responses or reopen discovery); Filed by Michael Del Orbe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES OR REOPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF EDWIN S. SASAKI); Filed by M. Pernecky Management Corp., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by M. Pernecky Management Corp., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Michael Del Orbe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Michael Del Orbe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Michael Del Orbe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Michael Del Orbe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684029    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

michael del orbe,

Plaintiff,

v.

mcdonald’s corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC684029

Hearing Date: August 27, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to COMPEL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Michael Del Orbe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant McDonald’s Corporation (“Defendant”) after he slipped and fell at Defendant’s restaurant. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to respond to Request for Production #37 (seeking video footage of Plaintiff) and Request for Production #38 (seeking photographs of Plaintiff). In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery to propound these two Requests for Production.

Some confusion was created by the Court’s orders. In its order of October 30, 2019, the Court set trial for May 15, 2020. However, the Court did not re-open when it set the trial date. Based on the former trial date of November 15, 2019, the fact discovery cutoff was October 16, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Then, when the Court continued the trial date due to COVID-19, it issued a minute order on April 2, 2020 setting the motions and discovery cut-off based upon the new trial date. That was an error by the Court. Discovery should have remained closed. Therefore, the Court denies the motion to compel.

However, the Court grants the motion to reopen for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to propound the two Requests for Production at issue. In determining whether to re-open discovery, the Court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

The necessity of the discovery is clear. Equally important, the Court finds no prejudice to Defendant. The discovery is limited in scope and would be easy to locate and produce. Indeed, Defendant merely needs to check its surveillance system and determine whether it has responsive video or still shots (which Defendant likely has already done in the process of preparing for trial). Even in the absence of any explanation why this discovery was not propounded sooner, the requested discovery is necessary, narrow in scope, and not burdensome to Defendant. Therefore, the motion is granted. However, the Court awards no sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is granted only for purposes of Plaintiff propounding Request for Production #37 and Request for Production #38. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 27, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC684029    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

michael del orbe,

Plaintiff,

v.

mcdonald’s corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC684029

Hearing Date: July 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel deposition

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Del Orbe (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel a second deposition of Dr. Jubin Merati (“Deponent”), who was retained by Defendant McDonald’s Corporation (“Defendant”) as an expert witness. Defendant opposes the motion, which is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.460, subdivision (a), a party to an action must produce an expert that party has retained to testify upon service of a proper deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.460, subd. (a).) Service of a deposition notice on an expert witness requires a deponent to “no later than three business days before his or her deposition, produce any materials or category of materials, including any electronically stored information, called for by the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.415.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff noticed Deponent’s deposition for October 30, 2019. In the deposition notice, Plaintiff requested that Deponent produce his report no later than three business days before the deposition. (Declaration of R. Scott Harlan, Exh. B.) Thus, Deponent should have produced his report to Plaintiff by October 25, 2019. However, Defendant retained Deponent as a rebuttal witness, to rebut the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained economist, David Weiner (“Weiner”). Deponent did not receive the transcript of Weiner’s deposition testimony until October 25, 2019. (Id., ¶ 5.) Deponent therefore could not reasonably provide a report rebutting Weiner’s testimony on the same date. Deponent timely produced his file on October 25, 2019, but produced the report at 5:29 p.m. on the night prior to his deposition, when he completed it. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff knew sufficiently in advance of the deposition that Deponent had not produced his report three days in advance. Plaintiff did not seek to postpone the deposition or secure an agreement to conduct the deposition in two phases. Nor did Plaintiff seek redress from the Court. Instead, Plaintiff elected to proceed with the deposition. Deponent appeared for deposition on October 30, 2019, as required per the deposition notice Plaintiff served. Then, Plaintiff elected not to substantively proceed and canceled only after Deponent and counsel arrived. Plaintiff concedes: “[P]revious counsel for Plaintiff cut the deposition short for a chance to review the new material.” (Plaintiff’s Motion, p.2:12-13.) Therefore, Plaintiff waived the right to review Deponent’s report for three business days prior to the deposition, and Plaintiff shows no good cause to order a second deposition of Deponent.

The Court declines to award sanctions. The Court finds that the parties had a good-faith dispute. The Court also notes that current counsel for Plaintiff arguably had a professional obligation to attempt to correct the error of Plaintiff’s prior counsel. For these reasons, an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and current counsel would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Deponent to appear for deposition is denied. The parties’ requests for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court