On 08/08/2017 SUNDEE RIVERS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AARON WERSTINE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB, SAMANTHA JESSNER, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARC D. GROSS
DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
JON R. TAKASUGI
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP INC.
DOES 1 TO 50
LAW FIRM OF MCCLAUGHERTY & ASSOCIATES
STEINER NEIL S. ESQ.
STEINER NEIL STUART
BASSETT MICHAEL L. ESQ.
ENDRES TED ESQ.
MCCLAUGHERTY JAY S. ESQ.
MCCLAUGHERTY JAY STEPHEN
MCCLAUGHERTY JAY STEPHEN ESQ.
BASSETT MICHAEL LYNCH ESQ.
TIPPIN ANDREW L.
BASSETT MICHAEL LYNCH
11/18/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION/OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN EXPERT DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF KHRYS WU
11/19/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN EXPERT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 2024.50 AND TO REQUEST CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF NEIL STEINER AND SUNDEE RIVERS
11/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)
9/9/2019: Joinder to Motion - JOINDER TO MOTION DEFS AARON WERSTINE AND KERRY WERSTINE'S JOINDER IN MTN IN LIMINE
9/6/2019: Reply - REPLY COMBINED REPLY OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF NEIL STEINER
9/3/2019: Notice of Ruling
8/28/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN NOTICE FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL
4/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT DR. PEP...)
4/10/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AS TO BASSETT, DISCOE, MCMAINS & KARGOZAR RELATING TO MOTION FOR ORDER STRIKING THE ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT
12/13/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Recusal of Judicial Officer Marc D. Gross)
12/14/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal) of 12/14/2018
12/6/2018: Declaration - Declaration Declaration in Opposition
3/21/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA
3/21/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA
4/27/2018: NOTICE RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR
8/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
8/8/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -
Hearing08/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/06/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Entry of Order Reopen Expert Discovery Pursuant to CCP 2024.50 and Continuing Trial); Filed by Sundee Rivers (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:47 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc OrderRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Notice of Motion/Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery Pur CCP 2024.50, in the alternative compel defendants to produce or preclude defendant Dr Pepper from offering expert testimony; continue trial; memo of points and authorities; Declaration) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Expert ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery Pursuant to CCP 2024.50 and to Request Continuance of Trial; Declarations of Neil Steiner and Sundee Rivers); Filed by Sundee Rivers (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER OF DEFENDANT, DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sundee Rivers (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Sundee Rivers (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC671468 Hearing Date: January 27, 2020 Dept: 28
After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:
Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.
AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:
This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the
following Independent Calendar Court in
Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.
Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.
Case Number: BC671468 Hearing Date: November 21, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Reopen Discovery, Compel Production, or Preclude Use of Evidence; Motion to Continue Trial
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff Sundee Rivers (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Aaron Werstine, Kerry Werstine, and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on August 13, 2015.
On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery, or in the alternative, compel production of expert reports, or in the alternative, preclude use of expert reports, and a request to continue trial.
Trial is set for December 5, 2019.
Plaintiff asks the Court to continue the trial date and reopen expert discovery to follow that new trial date, or in the alternative, to require Defendants to produce discoverable expert documents, or in the alternative, to preclude Defendants from presenting expert testimony unless they produce their expert’s documents.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)
Defendants argue Plaintiff did not provide adequate notice in serving the motion by email on November 14, 2019. (Oppositions, p. 2.) However, the motion’s proof of service shows it was served on Defendants by U.S. mail on October 21, 2019. As such, the Court finds Plaintiff properly served the motion on Defendants.
Plaintiff argues there is good cause to reopen expert discovery. Defendants refuse to produce expert documents that Plaintiff is entitled to receive. (Motion, p. 6:21-6:23.) Plaintiff needs to take the depositions of Defendants’ expert witnesses Daniel Kaplin, M.D., Beau LeBlanc BSME, John Kennedy, and Stephen L.G. Rothman, M.D. (Motion, p. 7:1-7:4.)
Defendants argue that the Court’s September 10, 2019 ruling forecloses Plaintiff’s argument that there is good cause to reopen expert discovery. (Opposition, p. 3:10-3:20.) The Court disagrees. In that minute order, as Plaintiff correctly observes, the Court did not reopen expert discovery when the Court continued trial because Plaintiff made the argument for the first time on reply that she needed to depose Defendants’ experts. As such, Plaintiff is not barred from making the request now.
The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial and reopen expert discovery for Plaintiff to depose Daniel Kaplin, M.D., Beau LeBlanc BSME, John Kennedy, and Stephen L.G. Rothman, M.D. Defendants do not argue that they will be prejudiced if this continuance and reopening of expert discovery is granted. However, Plaintiff does argue that she will not be prepared for trial and will not know the scope of the testimony that will be offered by the defense experts without being able to take these depositions. As such, there is good cause to reopen expert discovery.
The Court notes that there have been three prior continuances. (Steiner Decl., ¶ 35.) This continuance will be the fourth. The Court’s patience draws thin with each continuance. It becomes less and less likely that the Court will grant each subsequent continuance. As such, the Court strongly suggests that the parties complete discovery and prepare for trial without requesting another continuance in this matter.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders trial shall be continued to April 20, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to April 6 at 10:00 a.m. Both hearings are to be held in Department 4A of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
The Court extends the time for completing expert discovery for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the depositions of Daniel Kaplin, M.D., Beau LeBlanc BSME, John Kennedy, and Stephen L.G. Rothman, M.D. The non-expert discovery cut-off remains closed.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.