This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 03:05:45 (UTC).

RAVINDER SHERGILL ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

Case Summary

On 06/19/2017 RAVINDER SHERGILL filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5619

  • Filing Date:

    06/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SHERGILL RAVINDER

SHERGILL SANDIP

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 - 200

MCBRIDE DUNCAN Q.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ROWLEY NICHOLAS C. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

REBACK MCANDREWS KJAR WARFORD &

SANCHEZ BRANDON SPRAGUE

 

Court Documents

Notice

11/19/2018: Notice

Motion to Continue

1/29/2019: Motion to Continue

Declaration

2/19/2019: Declaration

Notice of Lodging

2/19/2019: Notice of Lodging

Request for Judicial Notice

2/19/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

2/26/2019: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

4/11/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Notice

4/11/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

4/24/2019: Ex Parte Application

Motion for Leave to Amend

5/8/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Minute Order

5/16/2019: Minute Order

Opposition

6/5/2019: Opposition

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

10/18/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ? MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

6/19/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ? MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

8/9/2017: DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Opposition (TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL BATTERY); Filed by Regents of the University of California, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;. FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; AND TRIAL); Filed by Regents of the University of California, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 6:48 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order continuing Defendant The Regents of the Universit...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order continuing Defendant The Regents of the Universit...) of 05/16/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Amend (Complaint); Filed by Ravinder Shergill (Plaintiff); Sandip Shergill (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order Continuing Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for Order Continuing Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing Date); Filed by Ravinder Shergill (Plaintiff); Sandip Shergill (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 08/09/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Regents of the University of California, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Regents of the University of California, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ravinder Shergill (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ravinder Shergill (Plaintiff); Sandip Shergill (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ravinder Shergill (Plaintiff); Sandip Shergill (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665619    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Deposition

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On¿June¿4,¿2017,¿Plaintiffs Ravinder Shergill and Sandip Shergill (“Plaintiffs”)¿filed a¿complaint against¿Defendants The Regents of the University of California¿and Duncan Q. McBride, M.D.¿for¿negligence – medical malpractice and loss of consortium.

On October 18, 2017, Defendant Duncan Q. McBride, M.D. was dismissed with prejudice.

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint alleging a new cause of action for medical battery.

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of the person most qualified for Defendant The Regents of the University of California pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.

Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

///

PARTYS REQUESTS

Plaintiffs asks the Court to compel Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s person most qualified’s appearance and testimony at a deposition within 10 days of the hearing on this motion for a failure to appear at a noticed deposition.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to impose $2,700 in monetary sanctions against Defendant The Regents of the University of California and its counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides: “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.

  1. 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.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (c) provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.”

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiffs served a notice of taking the deposition of Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s person most qualified by U.S. mail setting the deposition date for November 14, 2019.  (Faraj Decl., ¶ 7-8, Exh. 1.)  Defendant The Regents of the University of California objected because the deposition date was unilaterally set.  (Faraj Decl., 9, Exh. 2.) Plaintiffs sought alternative dates from Defendant The Regents of the University of California multiple times up until the motion cut-off deadline to no avail.  (Faraj Decl., ¶¶ 22-28.)  To date, Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s person most qualified’s deposition has not been taken.  (Faraj Decl., 29.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Plaintiffs properly served the deposition notice on Defendant The Regents of the University of CaliforniaThere is no law stating Plaintiffs cannot set a unilateral deposition date.  As such, Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s objection was improper.  Plaintiffs worked with Defendant The Regents of the University of California to civilly obtain a deposition date.  Defendant The Regents of the University of California did not provide such deposition date.  As such, Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s conduct suggests that only a Court order will allow this deposition to go forward.

The Court finds sanctions against Defendant The Regents of the University of California would be unjust.  This is because Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s correspondences show it was trying to get a date to Plaintiffs and was engaging in the meet and confer process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant The Regents of the University of California is ordered to comply with the notice of taking its person most qualified’ s deposition served on Defendant The Regents of the University of California on October 29, 2029 within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs request for sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.