Case Number: BC601029 Hearing Date: May 09, 2016 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

GREGORY ESCAMILLA,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

KELLY CARIKER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC601029

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #53
May 9, 2016

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Gregory Escamilla filed this action against Defendants, Kelly Cariker and Central City Wrecking, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition
Plaintiff has propounded a notice of deposition to Defendant on multiple occasions, but Defendant has not appeared for deposition. At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s deposition. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that she is admitting liability and therefore there is no need for her deposition to go forward. Of note, Defendant has a companion motion for a protective order in regard to her deposition scheduled for 6/07/16.

CCP §2025.010, et seq. permits any party to conduct the deposition of any other party to the action. §2017.010 permits a party to conduct discovery into any matter that is either itself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. §2025.420, however, permits the Court to impose a protective order precluding the deposition from going forward if the Court finds good cause to prevent unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, and/or expense.

The Court understands that Defendant has admitted liability in connection with the accident. She is, however, contesting causation and damages. It is reasonable that Defendant could have some information concerning these issues, such as Defendant’s perception of the force of the impact, Defendant’s perception of Plaintiff’ physical condition immediately after the accident, Defendant’s witnessing of Plaintiff’s response to the accident, etc.

On balance, the Court finds §§2025.010 and 2017.010 warrant permitting Plaintiff to conduct the deposition, while Defendant failed to make the requisite showing under §2025.420 that the deposition should not go forward. The Court encourages the attorneys to discuss, prior to the deposition, appropriate limits on the deposition so that unnecessary time is not wasted discussing liability, as opposed to causation and damages, at the time of the deposition.

Both parties seek sanctions in connection with the motion. §2025.450 mandates imposition of sanctions against the party who is unsuccessful in connection with the motion unless the Court finds the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court finds both parties took their positions in good faith, and there was a legitimate legal issue to be addressed by way of the motion, such that imposition of sanctions would not be just. All requests for sanctions are denied.

3. Motion to Quash
Defendant propounded numerous deposition subpoenas for production of business records on Plaintiff’s employer and health care providers. Plaintiff argues the subpoenas should be quashed because:
a. The subpoena directed to her employer is inappropriate because she is not claiming lost earnings as a result of the accident;
b. The subpoenas directed to her healthcare providers should be quashed as overbroad; and
c. The subpoena directed to St. Francis Radiology Medical Group is defective because the Group is an out-of-state entity and Defendant must obtain an out-of-state commission to obtain its records.

As an initial note, Defendant timely filed and served opposition to the motion on 4/26/16. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 5/02/16. As of 5/05/16, the Court has not received any reply papers. The Court will not consider a late-filed reply.

The opposition explains that Plaintiff has consistently asserted a loss of earnings claim in his complaint and statement of damages. It also notes that Plaintiff has not provided any signed stipulation pursuant to which he disavows such a claim. If Plaintiff wishes to avoid production of his employment records, he must expressly, by way of signed stipulation, disavow his loss of earnings claim. Unless he does so prior to the hearing on this motion, the motion will be denied.

With respect to the medical records, Defendant notes in opposition that Plaintiff is making claims regarding virtually his entire body – head, neck, back, both shoulders, both arms, and both legs. While the Court does typically limit medical records subpoenas to records directly related to the body part(s) at issue in the lawsuit, Defendant’s position in this case makes sense; if Plaintiff is claiming head-to-toe damages, limiting the records to a specific body part or parts is not reasonable.

With respect to the final argument, that the subpoena to St. Francis is not proper because it is an out-of-state entity and only an out-of-state commission can be used to compel it to provide records, Defendant correctly notes in opposition that this would be a reason for St. Francis to refuse to provide the records, but Plaintiff cites no authority in support of the position that it is a reason to quash the subpoena.

In light of the lack of a reply, the motion to quash is denied in all respects. The Court does, however, find that the motion was filed in good faith, such that imposition of sanctions on either party would not be just. The Court also notes that, on balance, Plaintiff prevailed in connection with the motion to compel deposition and Defendant prevailed in connection with the motion to quash, which further bodes in favor of denial of all requests for sanctions.

Dated this 9th day of May, 2016

Hon. Michelle Williams Court
Judge of the Superior Court