This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 03:22:24 (UTC).

RONALD GUNN VS MICAHEL PAOLILLO

Case Summary

On 12/28/2017 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by RONALD GUNN against MICAHEL PAOLILLO 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:

    ****8225

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

GUNN RONALD

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

PAOLILLO MICAHEL

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAOLILLO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/14/2018: DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAOLILLO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)

2/14/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT RONALD GUNN

5/21/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT RONALD GUNN

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/15/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

5/21/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

SUMMONS

12/28/2017: SUMMONS

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

12/28/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT RONALD GUNN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAOLILLO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688225    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

RONALD GUNN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MICHAEL PAOLILLO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC688225

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 4, 2019

Plaintiff, Ronald Gunn filed this action against Defendant, Michael Paolillo for damages arising out of a physical altercation. Defendants propounded a deposition subpoena for production of Plaintiff’s insurance records from Blue Cross Blue Shield. The insurance company refused to produce the records without a signed authorization from Plaintiff. At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization concerning his insurance records.

The motion is denied. Defendant presents no relevant authority in support of the motion to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization. The Court is aware of Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918-919, wherein the Court of Appeals considered this issue. In Miranda, the plaintiff made an underinsured motorist’s claim. The defendant commenced discovery, which revealed that the plaintiff had been treated for post-concussion symptoms with Kaiser in 2000. The defendant followed up with a subpoena to Kaiser, but Kaiser indicated it would only release the records with a signed authorization from the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to sign an authorization. The defendant ultimately filed an action to commence discovery with the Superior Court. The defendant concurrently filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of the records from Kaiser. The motion was unopposed, and the trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorization, and the trial court ultimately granted a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed, but the sole issue on the appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case; the Court of Appeals did not rule on the propriety of the issuance of the order compelling the plaintiff to sign the authorizations.

Notably, to the extent the Court of Appeals did rule on the issue, it was highly skeptical of the method of discovery. In a footnote, it indicated, “The record does not reflect the reason the medical facilities requested plaintiff’s authorization. Perhaps defendant did not comply with the procedures to obtain “personal records” of a “consumer” as required by section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case the medical facilities had a sufficient basis to refuse compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (k).) If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.”

There is ample California appellate authority holding that the trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery. See, for example, San Diego Unified Port Dist. V. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 and the cases referenced therein. The motion to compel is therefore denied.

Notably, Defendant contends the insurance company is in Illinois, so this court cannot enforce a subpoena against it. The methods for enforcement of subpoenas directed at out-of-state entities are set forth at CCP §2029.300, et seq. Defendant therefore has a mechanism for enforcement of the subpoena.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the opposition. The request is denied. While the Court cannot compel Plaintiff to sign the authorization, the Court will not reward Plaintiff for refusing to do so voluntarily. The Court always appreciates the parties’ cooperation in discovery matters, and will not reward conduct designed to frustrate the process.

Defendant 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.