Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/18/2020 at 08:04:47 (UTC).

TANYA WILLIAMS VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/14/2017 TANYA WILLIAMS filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5114

  • Filing Date:

    06/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WILLIAMS TANYA

Defendants and Respondents

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC

DOES 1 TO 100

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

KAISER PERMANENTE

SOCAL PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEIDMANN MARK ESQ.

SHEGERIAN CARNEY R. ESQ.

SHEGERIAN CARNEY RICHARD

Defendant Attorneys

MILLER MICHELE BALLARD

CARRIGAN JOHN RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Status Report - STATUS REPORT DEFENDANT'S REPORT REGARDING SCOPE OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE

11/18/2019: Status Report - STATUS REPORT DEFENDANT'S REPORT REGARDING SCOPE OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE

DECLARATION OF FREDRICK LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

8/16/2018: DECLARATION OF FREDRICK LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY 60-DAYS; EXHIBITS; DECLARATION GLORIA TUMANYAN

9/20/2018: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY 60-DAYS; EXHIBITS; DECLARATION GLORIA TUMANYAN

Notice - to Produce Witnesses at Trial

10/9/2018: Notice - to Produce Witnesses at Trial

Separate Statement

12/17/2018: Separate Statement

Exhibit List

1/15/2019: Exhibit List

Notice - Notice NTC FILE COMPLETE DEPO TRANSCRIPT OPP MSJ VOL 2 (T WILLIAMS)

1/15/2019: Notice - Notice NTC FILE COMPLETE DEPO TRANSCRIPT OPP MSJ VOL 2 (T WILLIAMS)

Reply - Reply to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Evidence

1/24/2019: Reply - Reply to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Evidence

Declaration - Declaration of John R. Carrigan, Jr., in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Reply and Moving Papers

1/28/2019: Declaration - Declaration of John R. Carrigan, Jr., in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Reply and Moving Papers

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MSJ, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF JOHN P. CARRIGAN, JR.

3/21/2019: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MSJ, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF JOHN P. CARRIGAN, JR.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; CONFERENCE MEDIATION SETTING; ORDER TO SHO...)

5/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; CONFERENCE MEDIATION SETTING; ORDER TO SHO...)

Request for Refund / Order

5/23/2019: Request for Refund / Order

REQUEST FOR REFUND

11/13/2017: REQUEST FOR REFUND

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/24/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

8/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/28/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/28/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

NOTICE OF CONTINUE OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

9/12/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUE OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/27/2020
  • Hearing04/27/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • Hearing04/21/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Appointment of Discovery Referee) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Conference (ReMediation Setting) - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Conference (ReProvider's Notes) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Conference (ReDiscovery) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference (All-Purpose); Conference Re: Discovery; Co...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
177 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Tanya Williams (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FOR: (1) DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665114    Hearing Date: April 14, 2021    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: April 14, 2021

Case Name: Williams v. Socal Permanente Medical Group, et al.

Case No.: BC665114

Matter: Motion to Reopen Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Responding Party: Plaintiff Tanya Williams


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


This is an employment action. Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group seeks to reopen discovery for the limited purposes of deposing Plaintiff Tanya Willaims for a half day regarding emotional distress damages. Discovery closed in May 2020, but given the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant wishes to depose Plaintiff about her emotional distress damages and the issue of mitigation.

Plaintiff opposes the Motion because, inter alia, (1) “should Plaintiff have any updated information regarding damages, she will provide updated expert reports and other information, and Defendant can meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel about deposing the experts on their updated report”; (2) there has been a six month delay in bringing the instant Motion; (3) another trial continuance will be necessary; (4) there have been repeated efforts to reopen discovery; (5) the parties stipulated in 2019 that Plaintiff’s deposition was completed; and (6) Defendant never completed a medical exam of Plaintiff.

To determine whether discovery should be reopened the Court is to consider any matter related to the request, including, but not limited to,

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(b).)

Because (1) the Court, in February 2021, continued the trial date in this matter to July 2021; (2) the unexpected circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic caused delays that make discovery relating to damages relevant and necessary; and (3) a half-day deposition would be a de-minimis burden, the Motion is granted.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS is a litigant

Latest cases where KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Shegerian, Carney R