On 08/30/2017 TESSA SMITH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****3951
08/30/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
SMITH TESSA
SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN
MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC
DOES 1 TO 20
PASTERNACK BARRY A.
DORDICK GARY ALAN
AMARO MICHAEL L. ESQ.
2/22/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/31/2019: Ex Parte Application
5/31/2019: Minute Order
5/31/2019: Order
1/24/2019: Ex Parte Application
1/25/2019: Minute Order
5/1/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
10/10/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
10/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
8/30/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
8/30/2017: Unknown
8/30/2017: SUMMONS
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For order continuing trial and all other dates) - Held - Motion Granted
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For order continuing trial an...)); Filed by Clerk
Order granting plaintiff's ex parte application for order continuing trial; Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
Ex Parte Application (For order continuing trial and all other dates); Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
Notice of Ruling; Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for order continuing trial and all other dates) - Held - Motion Granted
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for order continuing trial an...)); Filed by Clerk
Ex Parte Application (for order continuing trial and all other dates); Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
Association of Attorney; Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Answer; Filed by MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC (Defendant)
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by TESSA SMITH (Plaintiff)
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Case Number: BC673951 Hearing Date: March 10, 2020 Dept: 32
TESSA SMITH, Plaintiff, v.
MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC, et al., Defendant. |
Case No.: BC673951
Hearing Date: March 10, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant’S Motion to compel compliance with subpoena |
Plaintiff Tessa Smith (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC (“Defendant”) with supplemental interrogatories seeking the identification of all sub rosa materials. Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not schedule an informal discovery conference, as required. Second, Defendant represents: “Defendant MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC does not intend to use any of the subrosa videos at trial in any form.” (Defendant’s Opposition, at p.2:8-9.)
The work product of an attorney, other than a writing described in subdivision (a), is not discoverable unless the Court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030(b). Simply because the subject matter sought to be discovered is the work product of an attorney does not make the subject matter privileged. (Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, 177-178.) In other words, attorney work product is not absolutely privileged. (Id. at 178.)
If Defendant intended to use the videos at trial, Plaintiff would have a strong argument in favor of production because she could not otherwise obtain the requested information from other sources, and the mere fact that Plaintiff knows of her own physical condition would not be enough to eliminate unfair surprise to Plaintiff at trial. In this case, however, Defendant represents that it “does not intend to use any of the subrosa videos at trial in any form.”
Based upon Defendant’s representation, the Court orders that the sub rosa videos shall be excluded from trial and may not be introduced for any purpose, including impeachment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: March 10, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC673951 Hearing Date: January 21, 2020 Dept: 32
tessa smith, Plaintiff, v.
magic mountain, llc,
Defendant. |
Case No.: BC673951
Hearing Date: January 21, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to bifurcate |
Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to bifurcate the trial of this case into two phases: liability; and damages. Plaintiff Tessa Smith (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . . . make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that trial of liability separately from damages would result in efficiencies. Instead, it is likely that it would result in duplication of effort. Plaintiff contends her hand became stuck in a gate at an amusement park that Defendant owned and operated. It is logical and efficient for Plaintiff to present evidence on how and why Defendant is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries at the same time as Plaintiff presents evidence on the injuries that resulted from the underlying accident. Also, the evidence on damages will not be so voluminous compared to evidence on liability as to justify bifurcation.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant’s motion for bifurcation is denied. Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) This order is without prejudice to Defendant requesting that the trial court consider bifurcation on its own motion. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: January 21, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court