Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 00:42:48 (UTC).

SUSANA HOGAN VS ROGER KENNETH LEIB

Case Summary

On 10/13/2017 SUSANA HOGAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROGER KENNETH LEIB. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9755

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HOGAN SUSAN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

LEIB ROGER KENNETH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GARCIA ROY ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/1/2019: Unknown

Answer

2/1/2019: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

2/1/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Ruling

2/28/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

2/28/2019: Ex Parte Application

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

10/13/2017: SUMMONS

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

10/13/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial and all related dates;) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ROGER KENNETH LEIB (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (defendants ex parte application to continue trial and all related dates); Filed by ROGER KENNETH LEIB (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and all rel...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • Answer; Filed by ROGER KENNETH LEIB (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by ROGER KENNETH LEIB (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by ROGER KENNETH LEIB (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SUSAN HOGAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679755    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff Susana Hogan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Roger Kenneth Leib (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on November 3, 2015.

On February 4, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for October 25, 2021.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to compel Sheldon Jordan, M.D.’s compliance with a deposition subpoena served to him on November 2, 2020.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.  In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.”  (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

DISCUSSION

On November 2, 2020, Defendant served a deposition subpoena on Sheldon Jordan, M.D. seeking documents pertaining to Plaintiff dated within the past ten years.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. C-D.) (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 6-7, Exh. C.)  Dr. Jordon did not produce post processing documents showing data from FMRI acquisition that shows blunt coupling and DTI acquisition images, including the specific database used to compare data.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 8.)  Dr. Jordon states the requested data is not portable and that Dr. Jordon is willing to have Defendant’s expert review the requested data remotely or in person with the assistance of Dr. Jordan’s technical staff.  (Deason Decl., Exh. 4.)  Rather, the data requested is within over 50,000 files that can only be accessed directly through Dr. Jordan’s high capacity computer or a PAX system to process the data.  (Opposition, p. 3:12-3:16.)  The requested data is owned and possessed by Westwood Open Imaging, not Dr. Jordan.  (Opposition, pp. 2:25-3:10.)  Rather, Dr. Jordan uses software to harmonize the requested data from other databases.  (Ibid.)  

On March 9, 2021, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to March 19, 2021 for the parties to meet and confer with each other and their experts to determine if the produced document attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition is the postprocessing data from the fMRI acquisition requested by Defendants expert and to confer to try to determine if Dr. Jordan has the requested DTI acquisition images, or the requested data is held by Westwood Imaging.

CONCLUSION

The parties should be prepared to discuss (1) whether the produced document attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition is the postprocessing data from the fMRI acquisition requested by Defendants expert and (2) whether Dr. Jordan has the requested DTI acquisition images or the requested data is held by Westwood Imaging by April 9, 2021.

Case Number: BC679755    Hearing Date: March 9, 2021    Dept: 28

The court would appreciate an explanation of what it is the Defense is requesting and why Plaintiff's expert says he cannot produce it remotely.

Case Number: BC679755    Hearing Date: February 10, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Mental Examination

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff Susana Hogan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Roger Kenneth Leib (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence arising from an incident that occurred on November 3, 2015.

On January 1, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a second medical examination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320.

Trial is set for October 25, 2021.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for a pain management examination that will evaluate Plaintiff’s need for future pain management procedures.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil procedure section 2032.310 states: “(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. (b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320 states: “(a) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. . . . (d) An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320 states: “(a) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. . . . (d) An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination. (e) If the place of the examination is more than 75 miles from the residence of the person to be examined, an order to submit to it shall be entered only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved . . . [and] (2) [t]he 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.”

DISCUSSION

On August 23, 2019, neurologist David A. Gehret M.D. performed an independent medical examination of Plaintiff. (Deason Decl., Exh. 5.) The scope of Dr. Gehret’s examination was limited to a neurologic review of Plaintiff’s injuries and her need for future medical care. (Ibid.) However, Dr. Gehret opined as to Plaintiff’s injuries to other body parts, including her neck, wrist, ankle, knee, and lower back. (Ibid.) On December 7, 2020, Plaintiff served discovery responses stating Plaintiff will need pain management procedures over the course of her life for injuries sustained from the November 3, 2015 incident. (Mendoza Decl., 3, Exh. A.)

The Court finds there is no good cause for a a second examination of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff has not designated a pain management specialist.  Both Plaintiff and the defense have designated neurologists to testify at trial, and the defense has a neuroradiologist.  The defense has not established that their neurologist cannot respond to testimony presented by Plaintiff’s neurologist or that before an individual could counter any testimony , that individual would have to examine the plaintiff to do so. 

In addition, Plaintiff has already had to travel out of state to attend the first examination requested by the defense.  The Court sees no need to make her have to make the journey twice under the present circumstances.  

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to file a proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH