Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/20/2021 at 19:59:58 (UTC).

RICHARD CRAN VS HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION CO,, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/26/2018 RICHARD CRAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION CO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6018

  • Filing Date:

    11/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

CRAN RICHARD

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION CO

PV CAMPUS PARCEL 1 L.P.

HERCULES EAST CAMPUS L.P.

THE RATKOVICH COMPANY

PV CAMPUS PARCEL 2 L.P.

CRAN RICHARD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MILLER DAVID RONALD

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

KUCK DANIELLE L

WINDHAM TIMOTHY R

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

1/27/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

1/27/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

11/24/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

11/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

11/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

[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

3/25/2020: [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

Request for Dismissal

2/26/2020: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/9/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER (TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT)

4/5/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER (TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT)

Cross-Complaint

4/29/2019: Cross-Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial

4/29/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/5/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3/22/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/22/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

Cross-Complaint

3/22/2019: Cross-Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/26/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint for Personal Injuries

11/26/2018: Complaint - Complaint for Personal Injuries

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/14/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/27/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Richard Cran (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by HERCULES EAST CAMPUS, L.P. (Cross-Complainant); The Ratkovich Company (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co, (Defendant); PV Campus Parcel 2, L.P. Erroneously Sued As PV Campus Parcel 1, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 04/05/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (To Di9smiss Punitive Damages form Plaintiff's Complaint.); Filed by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co, (Defendant); PV Campus Parcel 2, L.P. Erroneously Sued As PV Campus Parcel 1, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by PV Campus Parcel 2, L.P. (Cross-Complainant); Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co, (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketAnswer (TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL); Filed by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co, (Defendant); PV Campus Parcel 2, L.P. Erroneously Sued As PV Campus Parcel 1, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Cross-Complaint); Filed by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co, (Defendant); PV Campus Parcel 2, L.P. Erroneously Sued As PV Campus Parcel 1, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by David Ronald Miller (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Richard Cran (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint (for Personal Injuries); Filed by Richard Cran (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Richard Cran (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV06018    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Miko Tanabe’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas issued to Atkinson & Associates, Inc., Homeboy Industries, Jamar Packaging, Inc., Volt Workforce Solutions, Alonso Cardenas, M.D., Kaiser Permanente, and Kaiser Permanente Parsons West-Billing Records is GRANTED in part as follows:

The subpoenas to Atkinson & Associates, Inc., Homeboy Industries, Jamar Packaging, Inc., Volt Workforce Solutions are MODIFIED to seek only Tanabe’s personnel records from these entities; and

The subpoenas to Alonso Cardenas, M.D., Kaiser Permanente, and Kaiser Permanente Parsons West-Billing Records, are MODIFIED to be limited to records related to Tanabe’s suffering of humiliation, embarrassment, shunning, fear, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, and mental anguish. The records shall also be limited to those from January 1, 2015, to the present

  1. MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A party may bring a motion under this section. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).)

Tanabe moves to quash seven subpoenas issued to the following entities: Atkinson & Associates, Inc., Homeboy Industries, Jamar Packaging, Inc., Volt Workforce Solutions, Alonso Cardenas, M.D., Kaiser Permanente, and Kaiser Permanente Parsons West-Billing Records. The subpoenas issued to Atkinson, Homeboy, Jamar, and Volt, asked for documents related to Tanabe’s employment, benefits, duties, and hours worked at the various organizations. (Motion Exhs. 1–4.) The subpoenas issued to Cardenas and Kaiser asked for all medical records related to Tanabe from 2010 to the present, while the subpoena to Kaiser Billing asked for itemized billing records for all medical treatment from the same period. (Motion Exhs. 5–7.) Tanabe argues that these broad requests are sweeping intrusions into her private and protected information. (Motion at pp. 3–9.)

  1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because it was not served at least five days before the date of production under Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3, subg. (g), and because the separate statement included with the motion did not include the objections that Tanabe served to the subpoenas under CRC 3.1345, subd. (c). (Opposition at p. 8.) But Defendants articulate no prejudice that they or a third party suffered by these defects, and they furnish no basis to deny the motion.

  1. THE SUBPOENAS

The court also notes that Defendants in their meet-and-confer correspondence have already offered to limit their medical subpoenas to a five-year period, rather than the ten-year period sought in the subpoenas now. (Motion Exh. 9.) They have also offered to limit the employment records sought to Tanabe’s personnel files at the prior employers. (Opposition at p. 15.)

The California Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1013.) The right to privacy extends to medical records. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.) Communications between patients and their physicians or psychotherapists are also protected by statutory privileges. (Evid. Code §§ 994 [physician-patient], 1014 [psychotherapist-patient].)

None of these protections or privileges is absolute. Physician-patient privilege does not exist if the communication sought is “relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient in a proceeding to recover damages on account of the conduct of the patient if good cause for disclosure of the communication is shown.” (Evid. Code § 999.) Likewise, no privilege exists for patient-psychotherapist communications if “relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient” if such issue has been tendered by the patient. (Evid. Code § 1016, subd. (a).)

In the constitutional context, “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

“[W]hile the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one's constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such ‘waiver’ must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities. Therefore . . . an implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 842.)

The court first finds that, when the employment records sought are limited to Tanabe’s personnel files from her various prior employers, the subpoenas to Atkinson, Homeboy, Jamar, and Volt are not overbroad or invasive. Although employees generally have a privacy right in their personnel records (See El Dorado Savings & Loan v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345, overruled on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.), in employment cases, “defendants are generally entitled to discover plaintiff’s previous employer’s payroll records and personnel files (including performance evaluations).” (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 19:684.) Indeed, “[e]vidence of the plaintiff's work history and earnings is a standard subject of discovery.” (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 296 fn. 9.) Thus the subpoenas to Atkinson, Homeboy, Jamar, and Volt shall be MODIFIED to seek only Tanabe’s personnel records from these entities, and the motion to quash is otherwise DENIED.

However, the court agrees with Tanabe that the subpoenas are overbroad with respect to her medical records. The Complaint alleges that Tanabe suffered humiliation, embarrassment, shunning, fear, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, and mental anguish, suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct. (Complaint ¶¶ 41, 95, 108.) The medical records sought are not limited to these pleaded items.

Defendants argue that a wide breadth of medical records are necessary because Tanabe has not offered discovery as to the precise nature of the disability that caused her to seek a medical leave of absence before her termination. (Opposition at pp. 6–7, 13.) But if Tanabe is not forthcoming in response to Defendants’ discovery demands, the Code of Civil Procedure affords Defendants some relief in the form of motions to compel. The proper remedy is not for this court to allow generalized discovery into Tanabe’s medical records.

Accordingly, the subpoenas to Kaiser, Cardenas, and Kaiser Billing are MODIFIED to be limited to records related to Tanabe’s suffering of humiliation, embarrassment, shunning, fear, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, and mental anguish, and the records shall also be limited to those from January 1, 2015, to the present.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE RATKOVICH COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION CO. is a litigant