Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/18/2021 at 16:38:16 (UTC).

SHOGHAKAT SOGOMONYAN VS MOSHE WILKER MD

Case Summary

On 03/10/2017 SHOGHAKAT SOGOMONYAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against MOSHE WILKER MD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO, LAURA A. SEIGLE, AMY D. HOGUE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3144

  • Filing Date:

    03/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

YOLANDA OROZCO

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SOGOMONYAN SHOGHAKAT

Defendants and Respondents

WILKER MOSHE M.D.

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HOVSEPIAN NORA

SHOGHAKAT SOGOMONYAN

FOSTER RICHARD M.

Defendant Attorney

FRASER STEPHEN CLARK

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DANIEL K. DIK PER LASC RULE 3.57 PERTAINING TO DEFENDANT MOSHE WILKER, M.D.'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2/26/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DANIEL K. DIK PER LASC RULE 3.57 PERTAINING TO DEFENDANT MOSHE WILKER, M.D.'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO ANY OPINIONS NOT EXPRESSED DURING THEIR DEPOSITIONS; MEMORANDUM OF PO

2/26/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO ANY OPINIONS NOT EXPRESSED DURING THEIR DEPOSITIONS; MEMORANDUM OF PO

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING ANY WITNESSES, EVIDENCE, OR CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN RESPONSES TO DISCOVE

2/26/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING ANY WITNESSES, EVIDENCE, OR CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN RESPONSES TO DISCOVE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SUITS, ACCUSATIONS, OR CLAIMS MADE, OR TO BE MADE AGAINST DEFENDANTS OR DEFENDANTS' EXPERTS; MEMOR

2/26/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SUITS, ACCUSATIONS, OR CLAIMS MADE, OR TO BE MADE AGAINST DEFENDANTS OR DEFENDANTS' EXPERTS; MEMOR

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO MICRA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2/26/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO MICRA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FROM QUESTIONING PROSPECTIVE JURORS ABOUT OR OTHERWISE MENTIONING DURING VOIR DIRE ANY DOLLAR AMO

2/26/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FROM QUESTIONING PROSPECTIVE JURORS ABOUT OR OTHERWISE MENTIONING DURING VOIR DIRE ANY DOLLAR AMO

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO LIMIT DEFENDANTS EXPERTS TO THE OPINIONS RENDERED AT THE TIME OF THEIR DEPOSITIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MARINE

2/27/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO LIMIT DEFENDANTS EXPERTS TO THE OPINIONS RENDERED AT THE TIME OF THEIR DEPOSITIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MARINE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

6/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

7/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARINE KHACHOYAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOSHE WILKER, M.D.S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

12/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARINE KHACHOYAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOSHE WILKER, M.D.S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

12/15/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

Case Management Statement

1/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

11/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

11/8/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

11/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

[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

5/13/2019: [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

Declaration - Declaration in Support of IDC Conference

2/4/2019: Declaration - Declaration in Support of IDC Conference

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

5/8/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/19/2021
  • Hearing02/19/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena to Jenny Guerrero and for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and her Attorneys of Records

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • Hearing01/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Shoghakat Sogomonyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Moshe M.D. Wilker (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Shoghakat Sogomonyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena to Jenny Guerrero and for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and her Attorneys of Records) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (Sogomonyan - Notice of Cont. of MTQ Depo SDT of Jenny Guerrero); Filed by Moshe M.D. Wilker (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: rescheduled Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: rescheduled Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion...) of 12/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
62 More Docket Entries
  • 11/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Shoghakat Sogomonyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-08-24 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Shoghakat Sogomonyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Shoghakat Sogomonyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DICAL MALPRACTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC653144    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHOGHAKAT SOGOMONYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MOSHE WILKER, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC653144

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT MOSHE WILKER, M.D.’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION TO JENNY GUERRERO;  REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March19, 2021

On March 10, 2017, plaintiff Shoghakat Sogomonyan filed this action against defendant Moshe Wilker, M.D. for medical malpractice.  Defendant seeks to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena to Jenny Guerrero (“Ms. Guerrero”), who is the office manager of Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Domenick Sisto, M.D. (“Dr. Sisto”).  Ms. Guerrero was served on July 24, 2020 to appear for deposition on August 24, 2020.  Defendant served an objection on August 3, 2020 and filed this Motion on August 19, 2020.  

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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.  

“‘[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement’ and ‘[a]dmissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.”  (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653, citations omitted.)

Defendant argues the subpoena should be quashed because as defense expert Dr. Sisto’s office manager, Ms. Guerrero has no information or evidence that would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant states the deposition subpoena has been served in order to harass Defendant and defense counsel.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Guerrero’s testimony is necessary because Ms. Guerrero has been defense counsel’s main contact to arrange the expert deposition and document production and Plaintiff needs to ensure that the document production is complete. Plaintiff’s counsel proceeds to describe in detail various affronts he claims he has encountered while attempting to conduct expert discovery.  

Plaintiff originally issued a deposition subpoena for Dr. Sisto for March 13, 2020 which was rescheduled to March 16, 2020.  (Foster Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 2.)  Plaintiff complains that Defendant did not produce Dr. Sisto’s expert file on March 13, 2020 as required by CCP section 2034.415.  (Opp. at 2:24-5:12; Foster Decl., ¶¶ 7, 10, 12, 13, 17. ) However, Defendant’s deposition did not take place until July 13, 2020, and section 2034.415 requires the deponent produce the requested documents no later than three business days before the deposition, not the date of the first noticed depositionThus, Plaintiff’s complaint that he did not receive the expert file in time is invalid.  

Plaintiff next complains that defense counsel refused to allow Plaintiff to depose Dr. Sisto on March 16, 2020 due to “priority.” short notice, only for defense counsel to cancel the deposition in order to go on vacation.  When defense counsel returned, Dr. Sisto’s deposition (and all expert depositions) were taken off calendar due to defense counsel’s representation that he had to quarantine and that Dr. Sisto’s office was closed until the end of March 2020.   Then, between March and July, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly requested Dr. Sisto’s document production and deposition appearance.

Dr Sisto was finally deposed on July 13, 2020 but his deposition was limited to two hoursAfter the two-hour deposition concluded, Plaintiff sought a second deposition session with Dr. Sisto. Sisto and Ms. Guerrero.

Plaintiff contends Ms. Guerrero would be the best person to know anything in connection with document productions and whether Dr. Sisto produced his entire expert file.  Plaintiff expresses concern that Defendant is not being truthful with producing Dr. Sisto’s entire expert file.  In support, Plaintiff recounts that during the deposition, Dr. Sisto allegedly could not answer questions about his document production or what he reviewed before preparing his reports.  

On reply, Defendant attaches a single page from Dr. Sisto’s deposition transcript which reflect his testimony that he has provided the totality of the opinions he intends to offer at the time of trial.  (Kogen Decl., Ex. A.)  

The Court does not understand why Ms. Guerrero’s deposition needs to be taken.  Plaintiff already possesses the opinions Dr. Sisto intends to offer at trial.  Plaintiff’s counsel claims he cannot be sure whether the entire expert file was produced, what other documents may remain, and what documents were provided for his review.  However, Ms. Guerrero’s knowledge of which files were sent over for review is irrelevant if Dr. Sisto does not review them or rely on them to form an opinion; she does not have personal knowledge regarding which documents Dr. Sisto looked atFurthermore, if Dr. Sisto fails to produce or mention a pertinent document that he reviewed or relied on, Plaintiff can handle any potential problem through motions in limine Ultimately, whether defense counsel has acted in bad faith when representing Dr. Sisto’s limited availability is properly addressed by a motion for sanctions, not by summoning irrelevant third-parties for a deposition.

Defendant’s Motion to quash is GRANTED. 

The court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)  

After reviewing the many pages of evidence that were submitted, the Court is dismayed that the parties have brought such a squabble before the bench.  Defense counsel’s failure to deny Plaintiff’s claims of bad faith in representing Dr. Sisto’s availability is concerning while Plaintiff’s retaliatory measure of subpoenaing Ms. Guerrero is equally disturbing.  Accordingly, the Court declines to impose sanctions in connection with this Motion.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 19th day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court