This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 03:24:31 (UTC).

RODOLFO CASTRO VS VICTOR RAMIREZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/26/2017 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by RODOLFO CASTRO against VICTOR RAMIREZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8044

  • Filing Date:

    12/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CASTRO RODOLFO

Defendants and Respondents

ANAR LOGISTICS INC.

RAMIREZ VICTOR

DOES 1 TO 50

LIVING SPACES FURNITURE LLC DOE 2

DSI LOGISTICS INC. DOE 3

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

1/4/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

12/26/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

12/26/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, CASE NUMBER: FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT); Filed by Victor Ramirez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • Request for Dismissal (Partial-Without Prejudice-Cross Complaint by Living Spaces Furniture LLC as to DSI Logistics, Inc. ONLY); Filed by Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • Notice Of Association Of Counsel; Filed by Victor Ramirez (Defendant); Anar Logistics, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by DSI LOGISTICS, INC. (DOE 3) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Answer; Filed by DSI LOGISTICS, INC. (DOE 3) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Sheryl Lee Reeves (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2018
  • Cross-Complaint (for Equitable and Express Indemnity); Filed by Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2018
  • Other - (Civil Deposit); Filed by Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 02/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Rodolfo Castro (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Rodolfo Castro (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Rodolfo Castro (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Rodolfo Castro (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688044    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

RODOLFO CASTRO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

VICTOR RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC688044

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 20, 2019

Plaintiff, Rodolfo Frost filed this action against Defendants, Victor Ramirez and Anar Logistics, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff claims injuries to his neck, back, right shoulder, and right knee as a result of the accident.

Defendants propounded subpoenas on Plaintiff’s medical providers in an attempt to obtain information about the injuries. Plaintiff and Defendants met and conferred, but have been unable to resolve issues relating to the subpoenas. The stumbling block is Kaiser’s position that it is unable to respond to a subpoena and produce records based on body part, medical condition, or symptom.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash. The motion presents a unique situation; Defendant does not meaningfully argue that records irrelevant to the lawsuit should be produced (or can be produced, in light of Constitutional protections on a party’s right to privacy), but the third party in possession of the records claims not to be able to comply with the request. Notably, Defendant provides a copy of an Orange County Superior Court ruling wherein the Court found, under the circumstances, that a motion to quash must be denied and all records must be produced.

This Court disagrees. This Court has previously encountered this issue with Kaiser, and has consistently granted motions to quash in connection with the issue. In one such ruling, Department 92 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (which is now Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse) held:

Two things are clear; first, the subpoenas, as currently phrased, are overbroad. By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable. Evidence Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862–864. Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery. Evidence Code §999; Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314–1315.

Second, Defendant is entitled to Plaintiff’s past medical records that relate to the body parts in question, as Defendant is entitled to determine whether Plaintiff had any pre-existing conditions and/or causes of her currently-claimed injuries.

The Court, therefore, must determine how to balance these interests in light of Kaiser’s lack of willingness to comply. The Court finds the motion to quash must be granted; as noted above, the subpoenas, as currently phrased, are overbroad.

The Court is not currently in possession of a motion to compel Kaiser to comply with the more limited subpoena. The Court notes that it routinely orders parties to phrase subpoenas in the manner that Defendant did in this case – to limit the subpoenas to specific body parts, medical conditions, etc. The Court has not previously encountered a situation where a medical provider claimed it could not comply with such a subpoena. The Court would certainly entertain any argument by Kaiser in opposition to a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena; such opposition is not currently before the Court. Without the benefit of a brief from Kaiser, the Court notes that it would tend to be inclined to grant a motion to compel Kaiser to comply with the subpoena, as it is the entity in possession of the records and is therefore in the best position to make the determination at issue on this motion.

Notably, the Court reviewed its own file in the foregoing case, and finds no motion to compel was ever filed after the Court denied the motion to quash. Thus, it appears Kaiser ultimately found a way to comply with the subpoena.

The remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions. CCP §1987.2(a) provides that the Court “may” impose sanctions on the party who fails to prevail on a motion to quash, if the Court finds the opposition was made in bad faith or without substantial justification. The Court finds Defendant did not act in bad faith or without substantial justification; Defendant attempted, at length, to meet and confer with both Plaintiff and Kaiser to avoid this motion, and was put in a very unfortunate position by Kaiser’s declaration of inability to comply with a properly-phrased subpoena. In light of these efforts, the Court finds no sanctions should be imposed.

The motion to quash is granted. The relief is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to re-propound a more limited subpoenas on Kaiser. If Kaiser remains unwilling and/or unable to comply, Defendant may file a motion to compel compliance, at which time the Court will consider any opposition Kaiser chooses to file thereto.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.