This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/05/2022 at 16:51:55 (UTC).

NIEL ITZIK ADRABI VS RICHARD HARRISON

Case Summary

On 08/22/2017 NIEL ITZIK ADRABI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RICHARD HARRISON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, SERENA R. MURILLO and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3182

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

ADRABI NIEL ITZIK

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

HARRISON RICHARD

AMNON MIZRAHI CPA

Not Classified By Court

MIZRAHI CPA AMNON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MANUWAL SHERI S. ESQ.

ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO LLP

MANUWAL & MANUWAL

TREYZON BORIS

TREYZON BORIS ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

ZUREK RONALD ESQ.

BARATTA JAMES MARK

BARATTA JAMES M.

SMITH KEVIN D.

BARATTA JAMES MARK ESQ.

FAJARDO MILTON VLADIMIR ESQ.

SMITH KEVIN DEAN ESQ

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DE...)

12/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DE...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ATTE...)

11/9/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ATTE...)

Notice of Ruling

11/15/2021: Notice of Ruling

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CAROLINE J. WU IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

11/23/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CAROLINE J. WU IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OF THIRD PARTY CPA MIZRAHI TO DEFENDANT HARRISONS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF AT LEAST 1,640; DECL

11/23/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OF THIRD PARTY CPA MIZRAHI TO DEFENDANT HARRISONS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF AT LEAST 1,640; DECL

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT RICHARD HARRISON TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO THIRD PARTY AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA

12/1/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT RICHARD HARRISON TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO THIRD PARTY AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA

Opposition - PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL A THIRD DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION; DECLARATION OF ANNA LISA KNAFO

10/29/2021: Opposition - PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL A THIRD DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION; DECLARATION OF ANNA LISA KNAFO

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT NUMBER OF MOTIONS: DEPOSITION

11/2/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT NUMBER OF MOTIONS: DEPOSITION

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

11/2/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE AT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EVALUATION WITH DEFENDANTS PAIN MANAGEMENT EXPERT, DR. SUZY KIM

11/2/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE AT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EVALUATION WITH DEFENDANTS PAIN MANAGEMENT EXPERT, DR. SUZY KIM

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NATHAN GUEST IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/10/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NATHAN GUEST IN SUPPORT THEREOF

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

8/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED UPON ...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANNA LISA KNFAO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/12/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANNA LISA KNFAO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

8/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED UPON ...)

Separate Statement

7/28/2021: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

7/28/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MILTON V. FAJARDO

7/28/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MILTON V. FAJARDO

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING ON A MOTION COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE TO AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EVALUATION WITH DEFENDANTS PAI

7/28/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING ON A MOTION COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE TO AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EVALUATION WITH DEFENDANTS PAI

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/17/2022
  • Hearing02/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2022
  • Hearing02/07/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel motion to compel attendance at deposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2022
  • Hearing02/07/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel motion to compel attendance at deposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2022
  • Hearing02/03/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT RICHARD HARRISON TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO THIRD PARTY AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DE...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT RICHARD HARRISON TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO THIRD PARTY AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA); Filed by Richard Harrison (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2021
  • DocketOpposition (OF THIRD PARTY CPA MIZRAHI TO DEFENDANT HARRISONS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF AT LEAST 1,640; DECLARATION OF CAROLINE J. WU IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER); Filed by AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (OF CAROLINE J. WU IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS); Filed by AMNON MIZRAHI, CPA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
111 More Docket Entries
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketANSWER OF DEFENDANT RICHARD HARRISON TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Niel Itzik Adrabi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Niel Itzik Adrabi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC673182 Hearing Date: December 8, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Richard Harrison’s Motion to Compel Compliance\r\nwith Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Third Party Amnon Mizrahi,\r\nCPA and Request for Sanctions\r\nis DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the\r\nattendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored\r\ninformation, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition,\r\nthe court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any\r\nconsumer whose personal records are sought, or upon the court's own motion\r\nafter giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order\r\nquashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it\r\nupon those terms and conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ.\r\nProc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940)\r\n15 Cal.2d 206.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena\r\nas necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands,\r\nincluding unreasonable violations of the right of\r\nprivacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd.\r\n(a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nparty asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy\r\ninterest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given\r\ncircumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Hill v. Nat'l\r\nCollegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37.) The party seeking\r\ninformation may raise in response whatever legitimate and important\r\ncountervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection\r\nmay identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective\r\nmeasures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance\r\nthese competing considerations. (Id. 7 Cal. 4th at pp.\r\n37–40.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

When\r\nprivacy rights are implicated, the broad sweep of discovery is significantly\r\nnarrowed, such that information can be discovered on a showing of a particularized\r\nneed by the party seeking discovery, and by demonstrating that the\r\ndiscovery sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense,\r\nand that there is no less intrusive alternative. (Britt v.\r\nSuperior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844.) “Mere speculation as\r\nto the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some\r\nsubstantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private\r\ninformation sought in discovery. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7\r\nCal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020 [directing trial court to grant motion to quash as\r\nto discovery request that was not narrowly drawn to enable the court to\r\nevaluate the appropriate extent of disclosure].) If the court\r\ndetermines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must\r\ncarefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy. (Id.\r\nat 525.) The party seeking the discovery must show that the\r\ninformation cannot be obtained through depositions or non-confidential sources,\r\nand if discovery is allowed it must be minimally intrusive. (Harding\r\nLawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

Defendant moves for an order compelling\r\ncompliance with a subpoena for production of business records issued to third\r\nparty Amnon Mizrahi, Plaintiff’s CPA (CPA) pertaining to Plaintiff’s tax\r\nreturns, financial information, W2 forms, earnings, paystubs, profits,\r\ncommissions, and bonuses from 2012 to present.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff objected to the subpoena on\r\nprivilege grounds. (Wu Decl., Exhs. B, C.)

\r\n\r\n

“This privilege against forced disclosure of tax returns has been\r\nreaffirmed in a variety of situations by both this court and the courts of\r\nappeal.” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 704, 720.) “The\r\neffect of the statutory prohibition is to render the returns privileged, and\r\nthe privilege should not be nullified by permitting third parties to obtain the\r\ninformation by adopting the indirect procedure of demanding copies of the tax\r\nreturns.” (Id.) However, “[t]he privilege is waived or does not apply in\r\nthree situations: “(1) there is an intentional relinquishment [citation], (2)\r\nthe 'gravamen of [the] lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion\r\nof the taxpayer's privilege as to compel the conclusion that the privilege has\r\nin fact been waived' [citation], or (3) a public policy greater than that of\r\nconfidentiality of tax returns is involved [citation].” (Id. at 721.)

\r\n\r\n

This privilege also extends to W2 forms.\r\n(See Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 142-144.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived this privilege by\r\nproducing his W2 tax forms from 2014, 2015, and 2017 and select portions of his\r\npersonal income tax returns from 2014-2017. However, simply because Plaintiff\r\nproduced some portions of his tax information or his W2 forms for certain years\r\ndoes not mean he waived the privilege as to the rest of his tax information in\r\nperpetuity.

\r\n\r\n

The court in Schnabel v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721\r\nfound there was a waiver of the privilege because of an agreement to produce\r\nnecessary information, which entailed tax information. Similarly, Defendant\r\ncites to Marriage of Parks (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 346, 349, and argues\r\nthat the privilege is defeated if the taxpayer has expressly consented to\r\ndisclosure. However, Plaintiff has not consented to its disclosure; Plaintiff\r\nhas objected.

\r\n\r\n

Further, Plaintiff\r\nseeks damages for loss of earnings. But this does not render the nature of the\r\naction “so inconsistent” with the continued assertion of the privilege on Plaintiff’s\r\ntax returns. “The fact that financial records are difficult to obtain or that a\r\ntax return would be helpful, enlightening or the most efficient way to\r\nestablish financial worth is not enough. Likewise, standing alone, a finding of\r\nliability for punitive damages is insufficient.” (Weingarten v. Superior\r\nCourt (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 268, 276.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Where the court finds that a “motion was made or opposed in\r\nbad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the\r\nrequirements of the subpoena was oppressive[]” the Court has authority to\r\n“award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the\r\nmotion, including reasonable attorney’s fees[.]” (Code Civ. Proc.\r\n1987.2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds\r\nsanctions are not warranted in this case.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\nDefendant Richard\r\nHarrison’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Business\r\nRecords to Third Party Amnon Mizrahi, CPA and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nparty is ordered to give notice.

"b"

Case Number: BC673182 Hearing Date: November 9, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE\r\n\r\nDefendant Richard Harrison’s motion to compel a third defense medical\r\nexamination is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 2032.220 grants the ability to demand one physical examination without\r\nleave of court to any defendant in a case where the plaintiff is seeking\r\nrecovery for personal injury. Where, like this case, a defendant has already\r\ndemanded and effectuated one physical examination on the plaintiff and additional physical examinations are requested, Code\r\nof Civil Procedure section 2032.310 is invoked. To satisfy the requirements and receive an order to\r\ncompel an additional medical examination under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, the defendant must show good cause for the\r\nexamination. Code Civ. Proc § 2032.320(a). The standard for good cause requires\r\nthe moving party to produce specific facts justifying discovery and that\r\nthe inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably\r\ncalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Vinson v. Superior Court, (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet\r\nand confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Meet and Confer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The declaration\r\nof Milton V. Fajardo is sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer obligations\r\nprior to filing the instant motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Good Cause

\r\n\r\n

On June 8 and 9, 2021, Defendant served\r\nthree demands for independent medical examinations to be performed as follows:\r\n(i) by an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Forman, to examine Plaintiff's alleged\r\ninjuries relating to his leg, (ii) by a neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Gold, to examine\r\nPlaintiff's alleged traumatic brain injury, and (iii) by a physical medicine\r\nand rehabilitation specialist, Dr. Kim, to examine Plaintiff's alleged chronic\r\nand continuing pain issues resulting from the accident that occurred in 2017.\r\nPlaintiff stipulated to the first two examinations, but objected to the third.

\r\n\r\n

Here, good cause exists\r\nto compel Plaintiff to undergo a third independent medical examination by Dr.\r\nSuzy Kim, who is a pain management specialist, because Plaintiff claims he has\r\nchronic pain syndrome, constant nerve pain, and that he has pain every day. As\r\na result, the defense expert, Dr. Kim, should be\r\nprovided an opportunity to examine Plaintiff to fully prepare her conclusions\r\nand opinions on the claims alleged by Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s\r\nargument that he should not be ordered to undergo a pain\r\nmanagement independent medical examination because he has not yet sought pain\r\nmanagement treatment, is currently not claiming damages for future pain\r\nmanagement treatment, and did not designate a pain management expert in this\r\ncase and “as of this time, does not intend to call a pain management expert at\r\ntrial” is irrelevant. Plaintiff has alleged he experiences constant pain;\r\nDefendant is entitled to assess the nature and extent of these purported\r\ndamages and to provide testimony on this\r\nmatter.

\r\n\r\n

Moreover, while\r\nDefendant has already performed two medical examinations, neither Dr. Forman\r\nnor Dr. Gold are qualified to specifically testify on issues relating to pain\r\nmanagement.

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Court finds the facts shown are specific and justify good\r\ncause for the requested discovery.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Therefore,\r\nDefendant’s motion to compel the third defense medical examination is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

"