This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2020 at 07:43:48 (UTC).

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/21/2018 ROCHEL DISI filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against TAD TANOURA M D. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7011

  • Filing Date:

    05/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DISI ROCHEL

Defendants and Respondents

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS

BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC.

TANOURA TAD M.D.

MERIT BIOACQUISITION CO.

DOES 1-100

MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC.

TAD TANOURA M.D.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BALABAN DANIEL K. ESQ.

BALABAN DANIEL KEITH ESQ.

SPIELBERGER ANDREW

Defendant Attorneys

MARSHALL MATTHEW LAWRENCE

WEISS DAVID J.

HUNTER TIFFANY

HUNTER TIFFANY B.

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

8/21/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REPLY TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO)

8/21/2020: Reply - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REPLY TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO)

Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR EXHIBITS 25 AND 26 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS

8/21/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR EXHIBITS 25 AND 26 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS

Objection - DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VANESSA L. LOFTUS-BREWER FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DISI'S REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR P

8/21/2020: Objection - DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VANESSA L. LOFTUS-BREWER FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DISI'S REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR P

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO)

8/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO)

Notice - NOTICE PLTF ROCHEL DISI'S COMPENDIUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RFP #6 TO MERIT

8/12/2020: Notice - NOTICE PLTF ROCHEL DISI'S COMPENDIUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RFP #6 TO MERIT

Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR EXHIBIT 3 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTI

7/14/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISIS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR EXHIBIT 3 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC.S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTI

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISL'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST F

2/26/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - PLAINTIFF ROCHEL DISL'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST F

Informal Discovery Conference - INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT

2/26/2020: Informal Discovery Conference - INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/1/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion for Summary Judgment

10/31/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Answer - DEFENDANTS TAD TANOURA,M.D., REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND HARBOR/UCLA MEDICAL CENTER'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9/25/2019: Answer - DEFENDANTS TAD TANOURA,M.D., REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND HARBOR/UCLA MEDICAL CENTER'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

8/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

Opposition - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC. AND MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC'S DEMURRER

2/25/2019: Opposition - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIOSPHERE MEDICAL INC. AND MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC'S DEMURRER

Notice of Motion - DEFENDANTS BIOSPHERE MEDICAL, INC. AND MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY B. HUNTER

5/10/2019: Notice of Motion - DEFENDANTS BIOSPHERE MEDICAL, INC. AND MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY B. HUNTER

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/5/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

198 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/01/2020
  • Hearing12/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • Hearing11/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • Hearing11/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Hearing11/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Hearing11/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Hearing11/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Order to Show Cause Re: why a discovery referee should not be appointed and status of outstanding discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (1. Motion to Quash Plaintiff?s Subpoena to Custodian of Records for the Board of Supervisors, or in the alternative Limit the Scope of the Subpoena) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Motion to Quash Plaintiff?s Subpoena for records from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, or in the alternative Limit the Scope of the Subpoenas) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
300 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rochel Disi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Relocation Rescheduling; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707011    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

ROCHEL DISI,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC707011

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

TAD TANOURA, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: January 21, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendants Biosphere Medical, Inc. and Merit Medical Systems, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rochel Disi

Motion to File Records Under Seal

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2018, plaintiff Rochel Disi filed a complaint against defendants Tad Tanoura, M.D., The Regents of the University of California, The University of California at Los Angeles, Biosphere Medical, Inc., Merit Medical Systems, Inc., and Merit Bioacquisition Co. for medical malpractice, medical battery, medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, strict products liability – design and/or manufacturing defect, negligent products liability – failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and misrepresentation.

On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.

On March 8, 2019, the court overruled the demurrer to the 6th cause of action and sustained with leave to amend the demurrer to the 7th through 9th causes of action.

On March 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On September 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” But a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551. CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” CRC Rule 2.550(d) states: “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants Biosphere Medical, Inc. and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. request that the court seal specified exhibits to defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication:

1. Specifications for the mother solution from which the Subject Batch of Embosphere Microspheres was created [Tiffany Hunter decl., Exh. 1];

2. Specification for the Subject Batch [Hunter decl., Exh. 2];

3. Quality testing records for the mother solution from which the Subject Batch was created [Hunter decl., Exh. 3];

4. Quality testing records for the Subject Batch [Hunter decl., Exh. 4];

5. Reanalysis quality testing records for the sample of the Sample Batch retained by defendants in order to perform reanalysis testing to assess conformity with design specifications in the event an issue arises with a batch [Hunter decl., Exh. 5];

6. Sales invoice containing proprietary pricing information for the Subject Batch [Hunter decl., Exh. 6].

The court finds that defendants have not met their burden. Defendants’ present the declaration of attorney Tiffany Hunter in support of their motion, which is not competent evidence to support the court making the findings of facts that establish the requirements set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d). Thus, defendants have not met their burden of showing that there exists an overriding interest in protecting disclosure of the documents requested, that a substantial probability exists that an overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed, that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and that less restrictive means do not exist.

The motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer as to whether defendants can further narrow their request, as argued by plaintiff, with respect to documents identified as DEF000044-46.

Moving defendants are ordered to give notice.