2016-00204507-CU-PA

Robert Earl Anthony Venkus vs. Santiago O. Nolasco

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Subsequent Deposition

Filed By: Espejo, Monica M.

Defendants Biondi Paving Inc. and Santiago O. Nolasco’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Subsequent Deposition is granted.

Plaintiff was involved in two automobile accidents. He contends he was significantly injured in the July 2015 accident and, after two surgeries, was pain free at the time of his 2017 deposition and that his only future care at that time was a revision surgery that successfully went forward in September of 2017. As a result of plaintiff’s then claimed future medical expenses, defendant decided against seeking an Independent Medical Exam.

Plaintiff was in a second accident on February 27, 2018 and defendants received notice of this accident in plaintiff’s April 24 discovery responses. Plaintiff alleges that the subsequent accident exacerbated his lower back injury and now, unlike before, claims he will have future back pain and treatment, including additional surgeries. Defendants seek a second deposition to inquire about plaintiff’s altered physical status and to inquire as to apportionment of injuries.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that the second accident and subsequent injuries are “irrelevant” under Evidence Code 350 because the accidents do not arise out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or event.” Plaintiff further contends the 2.5 year time span between the two accidents renders apportionment of injuries inapplicable. Plaintiff contends that inquiry into the second accident is “irrelevant” because all of plaintiff’s future damages are the “natural and expected consequences” of the July 2015 accident and therefore entirely attributable to the first accident. Thus, it appears plaintiff contends that defendants are liable for all damages incurred in the 2017 accident despite that fact that it is not clear whether the person involved in the second accident may partially be at fault.

The Court rejects plaintiff’s “irrelevance” argument. Apportionment of injuries is common when two unrelated automobile accidents cause injuries to the same area of the body. The Court finds good cause to order a second deposition of plaintiff based on his injuries sustained in the second accident. CCP 2025.610(b)

“The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389.) “In other words, the discovery process is designed to make a trial less a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest possible extent.” (Id.) “An important aspect of legitimate discovery from a defendant’s point of view is the ascertainment, in advance of trial, of the specific components of plaintiffs case so that appropriate preparations can be made to meet them. It is impossible to discover this information other than from plaintiff.” (Id., citing Karl v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 637, 650.)

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to set up a date, time and place for the second deposition to occur on or before June 11, 2018.