This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/24/2022 at 03:42:24 (UTC).

ROCHELLE GREEN VS HARONI INVESTMENTS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/27/2018 ROCHELLE GREEN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HARONI INVESTMENTS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, FREDERICK C. SHALLER and MICHAEL E. WHITAKER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5974

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

GREEN ROCHELLE

Respondents and Defendants

HARONI INVESTMENTS LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.

DOLLISON ALLAN LEE ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

WORTHGE MARK K.

WORTHGE MARK KENNETH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S PERS...)

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S PERS...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL TES...)

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL TES...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Notice of Ruling

1/18/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

1/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, E

1/19/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, E

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, ESQ

1/19/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, ESQ

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF ROD

1/20/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF ROD

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO OBTAIN A TIMELY INFORMAL D...)

1/10/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO OBTAIN A TIMELY INFORMAL D...)

Declaration - DECLARATION COURT ORDERED DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, ESQ. RE: NECESSITY FOR PLAINTIFFS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 18, 2022

1/11/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION COURT ORDERED DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, ESQ. RE: NECESSITY FOR PLAINTIFFS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 18, 2022

Separate Statement

1/5/2022: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

1/5/2022: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROSA BUGARIN IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR

1/5/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROSA BUGARIN IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR

Declaration - DECLARATION ISO MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO FROGS(3)

1/5/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION ISO MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO FROGS(3)

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR

1/5/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/5/2022: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANT HARONI INVESTMENTS, LLCS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET THREE

1/6/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANT HARONI INVESTMENTS, LLCS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET THREE

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2022
  • Hearing05/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Hearing04/18/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2022
  • Hearing04/04/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2022
  • Hearing04/04/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • Hearing04/01/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • Hearing04/01/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2022
  • Hearing03/01/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • Hearing02/04/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • Hearing02/04/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATION OF RODRIGO SUAREZ, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF); Filed by Rochelle Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
174 More Docket Entries
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Frederick C. Shaller, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Frederick C. Shaller, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Rochelle Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Allan Lee Dollison, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Haroni Investments, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS HARONI INVESTMENTS LLCS ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rochelle Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695974 Hearing Date: January 18, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

January 18, 2022

CASE NUMBER

BC695974

MOTION

Motions to Compel Further Responses To

Special Interrogatories, Set 2; Requests for Production of Documents, Set 2; Requests for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Rochelle Green

OPPOSING PARTY

Haroni Investments, LLC

In the complaint filed on February 27, 2018, Plaintiff Rochelle Green (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured when a gate at property owned and controlled by Defendant Haroni Investments, LLC (“Defendant”) fell on her causing injuries. Plaintiff moves the Court for orders compelling Defendants to provide further responses to the following discovery requests:

  1. Special Interrogatories, Set 2, Propounded to Defendant

    1. Propounded: July 8, 2020

    2. Initial Responses: September 4, 2020

    3. Motion Filed: August 24, 2021 (Motion A)[1]

  2. Requests for Production of Documents, Set 2, Propounded to Defendant

    1. Propounded: July 8, 2020

    2. Initial Responses: September 4, 2020

    3. Motion Filed: August 24, 2021 (Motion B)

      Defendant opposes the motions.

      Procedural Requirements

      Informal Discovery Conference

      Per the First Amended Standing Order re Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse, 12-13, “The purpose of an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) is to assist the parties to resolve and/or narrow the scope of discovery disputes. . . . Parties must participate in an IDC before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.”

      Here, the parties complied with the Standing Order, and the Court presided over the required IDC on August 11, 2021.

      Timeliness of Motion

      A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).) Failure to file such a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents. (Ibid.)

      Here, Plaintiff filed the motions on the dates set forth above. Defendant has not objected to the timeliness of the motions.

      Meet and Confer

      A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., 2016.040.)

      “The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue. This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity of a formal order. . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-1435 [cleaned up].) To comply, “A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing counsel]. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; see also Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [to satisfy the attempt at informal resolution required in section 2016.040 opposing parties must do more than try to persuade each other of their errors].) In short, the Discovery Act “requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1438.)

      To that end, trial courts are entrusted with discretion and judgment to determine the necessary effort required to satisfy the requirement of an informal resolution. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433.) In determining if parties have satisfied section 2016.040, judges may consider “the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.” (Id. at pp. 431-432 [holding that the trial court was correct in determining that sending a letter with oppositions was an insufficient attempt at informal resolution].) In sum, meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters to each other stating each party’s respective positions.

      Here, as set forth in the Declarations of Rodrigo Suarez (“Suarez”), Counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff claims that he met and conferred with Counsel for Defendant, Rosa Bugarin (“Bugarin”) over the course of several months through written and verbal communications. (Declaration of Suarez (Motion A), 4, 10; Declaration of Suarez (Motion B), 4, 5 & 12.) In the Declarations of Bugarin, Bugarin concedes that the parties met and conferred regarding the subject discovery requests, but were not able to successfully resolve all of the disputes. (Declaration of Bugarin (Motion A), 6; Declaration of Bugarin (Motion B), 7-8 & 11.)

      Despite the allegations by each side, the Court finds that the parties met their minimum obligation to engage in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in the motions.

      Separate Statement

      California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.

      Here, Plaintiff has filed initial and amended separate statements related to the motions which comply with the Rules of Court.

      Analysis

      “The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise. In other words, the discovery process is designed to make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389 [cleaned up].)

      Where a party objects or responds inadequately discovery requests, a motion lies to compel further responses, and that party has the burden to justify the objections or inadequate responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories”]; 2031.310, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection”].) “A trial court's determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, when the facts asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the trial court's factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [cleaned up].)

      RULINGS RE Special Interrogatories (MOTION A): [2]

      Special Interrogatory Nos:

RULINGS RE Requests for Production of Documents (MOTION B):[4]

Request Nos:

Sanctions

A trial court may sanction a party for engaging in the misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010.)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d) provides: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (See also Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions based upon Defendants failure to provide complete, substantive responses to the subject discovery requests. The Court finds Defendant’s failure to provide, in part, complete, substantive responses to be an abuse of the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and Counsel for Defendant in the amount of $1120 which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fees for the motions at $60.00 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

Therefore, the Court grants, in part as set forth above, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310. Defendant shall serve further responses within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant, and Counsel for Defendant, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1120 to Plaintiff, by and through Counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.


[1] Subsequently, Plaintiff filed Amended Separate Statements and the Supplemental Declaration of Roberto Dominguez Quiroga in support of Motions A through D on December 15, 2021.

[2] “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.220, subds. (a)-(c).)

[3] “The law seems now to be settled in this state that interrogatories calling for names and addresses of witnesses are not objectionable on the ground of privilege or unreasonable search. The information may repose in a privileged document but the information itself, as distinguished from the written record, is not privileged.” (Unger v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 172, 175–176.) Further, the Court of Appeal held that “[r]equiring the disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses in circumstances such as those presented here do not involve an unreasonable or unlawful search—that it does not involve any search whatever or other violation of constitutional rights. ‘The order here in question does not require inspection of any statement, nor does it direct revelation of the contents of the statement of any witness or party.” (Id. at p. 179.)

[4] Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 requires “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Case Number: BC695974    Hearing Date: November 09, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

rochelle Green,

Plaintiff,

v.

haroni investments, llc,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC695974

Hearing Date: November 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel medical examination

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rochelle Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Haroni Investments, LLC (“Defendant”) after Plaintiff was injured by a gate at Defendant’s building. Now, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to attend a medical examination over 75 miles away from her residence. The motion is denied.

Legal Standard

When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.) A defendant is permitted to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) If the defendant seeks to require the plaintiff to appear more than 75 miles from the plaintiff’s residence, the court may order the plaintiff to appear only if” “(1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved. [¶] (2) The order is conditioned on the advancement by the moving party of the reasonable expenses and costs to the examinee for travel to the place of examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff resides in Lancaster, California, and she would require transportation to and from the examination. (See Declaration of Rodrigo Suarez, ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to appear for a physical examination with Michael Weinstein, M.D. (“Weinstein”), an orthopedist, at 360 San Miguel Drive Suite 701 in Newport Beach. The distance between Plaintiff’s home in Lancaster, California and Weinstein’s office in Newport Beach, California is more than 75 miles.

The Court finds no good cause to make an exception to the rule that an examination must occur within 75 miles of a plaintiff’s residence. Defendant has not established that there is a shortage of orthopedists within 75 miles of Lancaster.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived her objections by agreeing to this request. Although Plaintiff initially agreed to the examination, this occurred before the pandemic. Even Plaintiff’s cancellation occurred only shortly after a state of emergency was declared. Now, circumstances have changed, so the Court will not hold Plaintiff to her initial agreement to this examination. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant may have Dr. Weinstein perform the examination in a hotel room in the San Fernando Valley, or Defendant can select another orthopedist.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a physical examination more than 75 miles from his residence is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HARONI INVESTMENTS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOLLISON ALLAN LEE ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MITCHELL TIMOTHY PAUL