Preview
1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141
Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452
2 CLARK HILL LLP
555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 891-9100
4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
BHughes@ClarkHill.com
5 RReza@ClarkHill.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA
7 GONZALEZ BLAS
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH
14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA;
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA;
15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, [PROPOSED] ORDER
16 Defendants. Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
Dept.: 14
17
Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022
18 Trial Date: March 25, 2024
19 Date: December 12th, 2023
Time: 8:30 am
20 Place: Department 14
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14 of
23 this Court, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California, 93940, defendant GABRIELA
24 GONZALEZ BLAS and defendant FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION (collectively,
25 “Defendants”), will bring this Ex Parte Application requesting that the Court advance the hearing
26 date on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas,
27 which is currently set for March 15, 2024.
28 1
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN
REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 Under the California Rules of Court and the Standard of Judicial Administration, the facts
2 in this matter demonstrate that good cause exists to advance the hearing date on Plaintiff’s Motion
3 to Quash.
4 Good cause exists for this Ex Parte Application for the following reasons:
5 1. On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey County Sheriff’s
6 Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for production of
7 any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda.
8 2. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash
9 Defendants’ subpoenas.
10 3. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash is scheduled for
11 March 15, 2024.
12 4. Trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024.
13 5. In order for Defendants’ to adequately prepare for trial, Defendants need more than ten days
14 before trial to evaluate Plaintiff’s medical records.
15 6. Proper notice of this Ex Parte Application was given on December 11, 2023, pursuant to the
16 guidelines in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203.
17 7. Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is not
18 advanced to a time that allows Defendants ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s prior medical
19 records.
20 8. The interests of justice are best served if the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is advanced
21 so as to allow Defendants to fully evaluate and assess Plaintiff’s medical records.
22 9. Exigency exists to grant this Ex Parte Application because trial is currently scheduled for March
23 25, 2024.
24 This Ex Parte Application is made specifically pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
25 sections 128, subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(5), and 187 and will be based upon this Notice, the attached
26 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Ryan Reza, all documents on file with the
27
28 2
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN
REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 Court, and upon such further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the
2 Ex Parte Application.
3
Notice of this Ex Parte Application was given by Ryan Reza on December 11, 2023, at
4
5 9:30 a.m. via electronic correspondence to Amir Salehi, counsel for Plaintiff. . (Reza Dec. ¶ 2;
6 Ex. A, ex parte email notice). At the time of filing this application, it is unknown whether counsel
7 for Plaintiff opposes this motion.
8
9 Dated: December 11, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP
10
11 By:
Bradford G. Hughes
12 Ryan Reza
Attorneys for Defendants
13 FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC
and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN
REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 This application is made on the grounds that good cause exists to advance the hearing for
4 Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash. Plaintiff claims he was struck by Defendant Blas’s vehicle while
5 Plaintiff was on his bicycle and alleges to have suffered injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck
6 and upper extremities. Plaintiff was incarcerated for nine years and was released only three years
7 before the alleged incident. Given the length of time Plaintiff was incarcerated and given that
8 Plaintiff was incarcerated as recently as three years prior to the alleged incident, Defendants have
9 subpoenaed all of Plaintiff’s records from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department and the
10 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation so as to determine whether or not
11 Plaintiff suffered any injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck, or upper extremities prior to the
12 alleged incident while incarcerated. Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is
13 scheduled for March 15, 2024, while trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024.
14 In order for Defendants to properly assess the alleged economic and non-economic
15 damages claimed by Plaintiff as a result of this incident, Defendants require the ability to evaluate
16 Plaintiff’s prior medical history, including Plaintiff’s medical records while incarcerated.
17 Additionally, Defendants need more than just ten days before trial to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s
18 medical records. Defendants are willing to re-issue a narrow subpoena limited only to Plaintiff’s
19 medical records while incarcerated related to his neck, lower back, mid back, and upper
20 extremities. Defendants are also willing to redact any potentially prejudicial information that may
21 accompany the release of Plaintiff’s medical records. On this basis, Defendants request the Court
22 issue an Order permitting Defendants to be heard on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash on December 12,
23 2023, or at a date the Court deems appropriate.
24 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
25 Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2020, he was struck by Defendant Gabriel Blas’s
26 vehicle while he was on his bicycle. (Reza Dec. ¶ 3). On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
27 instant matter alleging a cause of action for general negligence and a cause of action for motor
28 vehicle negligence while making a claim for general damages. (Reza Dec. ¶ 4). On October 9,
1
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California. (Reza Dec. ¶ 5). During his deposition,
2 Plaintiff testified that he suffered injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck, and upper extremities.
3 (Reza Dec. ¶ 6). Plaintiff also testified that he was incarcerated for nine years from approximately
4 2008 to 2017 and was released from prison approximately three years prior to the alleged incident.
5 (Reza Dec. ¶ 7). On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey
6 County Sheriff’s Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for
7 production of any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda. (Reza Dec. ¶ 8). On
8 December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served its Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash
9 Defendants’ Subpoena. (Reza Dec. ¶ 9). Prior to filing and serving its Motion to Quash, Plaintiff
10 served upon Defendants a settlement demand for one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000)
11 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 998, which states that Defendants will have thirty
12 days to accept the offer or else the offer will be deemed withdrawn. (Reza Dec. ¶ 10).
13 Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled for March 15, 2024, while
14 trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024. (Reza Dec. ¶ 11). The subject ex parte to advance
15 the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is now necessary because Defendants will suffer
16 irreparable harm without ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial
17 (Reza Dec. ¶ 12).
18 III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
19 Every court has the inherent power to regulate the proceedings of the matters before it and
20 to affect orderly disposition of issues presented. (Santandrea v. Siltec Corp. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d
21 529, 535; Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 635-42; Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v.
22 RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1116-17; Cottle v. Superior Court (1993) 3 Cal.App.4th
23 1367, 1377.) Moreover, courts have inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers.
24 “There is nothing novel in the concept that a trial court has the power to exercise reasonable
25 control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it. Such power necessarily exists
26 as one of the inherent powers of the court and such power should be exercised by the courts in
27 order to ensure the orderly administration of justice.” (Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d
28 260, 264.) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(8) provides that every court has the
2
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 power to “amend and control its process and orders as to make them conform to law and justice.”
2 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c), this Court is empowered to grant ex
3 parte relief where an application makes an affirmative factual showing through a declaration
4 containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate
5 danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief. In addition, this Court has inherent power
6 to control the litigation before it at all times in the interests of justice and grant ex parte relief as
7 reasonably necessary. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 166. In short, the Code of Civil Procedure provides
8 this Court with the authority to grant Defendants’ Ex Parte Application
9 Here, good cause exists to grant Defendants’ Ex Parte Application because Defendants will
10 suffer irreparable harm without having ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s entire medical
11 history prior to trial on March 25, 2024. The hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled
12 for March 15, 2024. However, Defendants require an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical
13 records, even while Plaintiff was incarcerated, to properly assess Plaintiff’s Demand and prepare
14 for trial in March of 2024, which includes evaluating Plaintiff’s alleged economic and non-
15 economic damages. Defendants are willing to re-issue a new subpoena that narrowly requests only
16 medical records related to Plaintiff’s lower back, mid back, neck and upper extremities.
17 Defendants are also willing to redact any prejudicial information that may accompany the release
18 of Plaintiff’s medical records. However, Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if denied ample
19 opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial on March 25, 2024. Therefore, this
20 Ex Parte Application to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash should be granted.
21 IV. PROPER NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE APPLICATION WAS GIVEN TO ALL
22 PARTIES.
23 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203, a party seeking an ex parte order must
24 provide notice to all parties by 10:00 a.m. the court day prior to the ex parte appearance. Proper
25 notice of this application was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel on December 11, 2023. (Exhibit “A”
26 attached to Reza Decl.; Reza Decl. ¶ 13).
27 V. CONCLUSION
28 Good cause exists for the Court to advance the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash. Time is
3
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 of the essence given Defendants have until December 27, 2023, to either accept or reject Plaintiff’s
2 Demand and trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024. Therefore, Defendants will suffer irreparable
3 harm if they are not provided the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical records in advance of
4 trial.
5
Dated: December 11, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP
6
7
By:
8 Bradford G. Hughes
Ryan Reza
9 Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC
10 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
2 I, RYAN REZA, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of
4 California, and am a member at Clark Hill LLP, attorneys of record for defendants Gabriela
5 Gonzalez Blas and Freedom Medical Transportation, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) in the
6 above-captioned action. The information contained herein is known to me personally to be true
7 except where stated upon information and belief, in which case I believe such information to be
8 true and correct.
9 2. On December 11, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., Defendants provided notice of this Ex Parte
10 Application to Plaintiff’s counsel via e-mail. The notice states with specificity the nature of the
11 relief requested by this Ex Parte Application and attempts to determine whether Plaintiff will
12 appear to oppose this Ex Parte Application. Plaintiff’s counsel has not advised whether Plaintiff
13 will oppose this Ex Parte Application. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is a true and correct copy
14 of the correspondence providing notice.
15 3. Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2020, he was struck by Defendant Gabriel
16 Blas’s vehicle while he was on his bicycle.
17 4. On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant matter alleging a cause of action
18 for general negligence and a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for
19 general damages.
20 5. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California.
21 6. During his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he suffered injuries to his lower back,
22 mid back, neck, and upper extremities.
23 7. Plaintiff also testified that he was incarcerated for nine years from approximately
24 2008 to 2017 and was released from prison approximately three years prior to the alleged incident.
25 8. On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey County
26 Sheriff’s Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for
27 production of any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda.
28 9. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served its Motion for Protective Order and
5
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoena.
2 10. Prior to filing and serving its Motion to Quash, Plaintiff served upon Defendants a
3 settlement demand for one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) pursuant to California Code
4 of Civil Procedure § 998, which states that Defendants will have thirty days to accept the offer or
5 else the offer will be deemed withdrawn.
6 11. Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled for March 15,
7 2024, while trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024.
8 12. The subject ex parte to advance the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is now
9 necessary because Defendants will suffer irreparable harm without ample opportunity to assess
10 Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial.
11 13. My office has given notice of this Ex Parte Application on December 11, 2023, via
12 electronic correspondence to counsel. This notice states with specificity the nature of the relief
13 requested by this Ex Parte Application. See hereto attached Exhibit A.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
15 true and correct.
16 Executed this 11th day of December 2023, at Los Angeles, California
17
18 ______________________________
Ryan Reza
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al.
2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878
3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
4 On December 11, 2023, I served the foregoing document, described as DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION in this action by placing
5
the original of the document
6 true copies of the document
7 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses:
8 Amir Salehi, Esq.
Omega Law Group, PC
9 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
10 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263
Email: ams@omegalaw.com
11 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com
Email: eservice@omegalaw.com
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert Mosqueda
13
BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelopes
14 were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
15 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day
which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the
16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if
the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date stated in this
17 proof of service.
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing
18 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by
Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed on
19 this Proof of Service the following business morning.
BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e
20 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to the
21 parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the above
22 is true and correct.
Executed on December 11, 2023 at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
Lizabeth Garcia
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23
EXHIBIT A
Reza, Ryan
From: Reza, Ryan
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Amir Salehi
Cc: Hughes, Bradford G.; Garcia, Lizabeth C.
Subject: Mosqueda v. Freedom Medical Transportation: Notice of Ex Parte Application on
December 12, 2023
Counsel,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14 of the Monterey Courthouse, located at
1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California, 93940, defendants Gabriela Gonzalez Blas and Freedom Medical
Transportation, LLC, will bring an Ex Parte Application for an Order advancing the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas.
Thank you,
Ryan
1
Preview
1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141 Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452 2 CLARK HILL LLP 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 BHughes@ClarkHill.com 5 RReza@ClarkHill.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA 7 GONZALEZ BLAS 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH 14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA; 15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, [PROPOSED] ORDER 16 Defendants. Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta Dept.: 14 17 Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022 18 Trial Date: March 25, 2024 19 Date: December 12th, 2023 Time: 8:30 am 20 Place: Department 14 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14 of 23 this Court, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California, 93940, defendant GABRIELA 24 GONZALEZ BLAS and defendant FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION (collectively, 25 “Defendants”), will bring this Ex Parte Application requesting that the Court advance the hearing 26 date on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas, 27 which is currently set for March 15, 2024. 28 1 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 Under the California Rules of Court and the Standard of Judicial Administration, the facts 2 in this matter demonstrate that good cause exists to advance the hearing date on Plaintiff’s Motion 3 to Quash. 4 Good cause exists for this Ex Parte Application for the following reasons: 5 1. On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey County Sheriff’s 6 Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for production of 7 any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda. 8 2. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash 9 Defendants’ subpoenas. 10 3. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash is scheduled for 11 March 15, 2024. 12 4. Trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024. 13 5. In order for Defendants’ to adequately prepare for trial, Defendants need more than ten days 14 before trial to evaluate Plaintiff’s medical records. 15 6. Proper notice of this Ex Parte Application was given on December 11, 2023, pursuant to the 16 guidelines in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203. 17 7. Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is not 18 advanced to a time that allows Defendants ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s prior medical 19 records. 20 8. The interests of justice are best served if the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is advanced 21 so as to allow Defendants to fully evaluate and assess Plaintiff’s medical records. 22 9. Exigency exists to grant this Ex Parte Application because trial is currently scheduled for March 23 25, 2024. 24 This Ex Parte Application is made specifically pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 25 sections 128, subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(5), and 187 and will be based upon this Notice, the attached 26 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Ryan Reza, all documents on file with the 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 Court, and upon such further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the 2 Ex Parte Application. 3 Notice of this Ex Parte Application was given by Ryan Reza on December 11, 2023, at 4 5 9:30 a.m. via electronic correspondence to Amir Salehi, counsel for Plaintiff. . (Reza Dec. ¶ 2; 6 Ex. A, ex parte email notice). At the time of filing this application, it is unknown whether counsel 7 for Plaintiff opposes this motion. 8 9 Dated: December 11, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP 10 11 By: Bradford G. Hughes 12 Ryan Reza Attorneys for Defendants 13 FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 This application is made on the grounds that good cause exists to advance the hearing for 4 Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash. Plaintiff claims he was struck by Defendant Blas’s vehicle while 5 Plaintiff was on his bicycle and alleges to have suffered injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck 6 and upper extremities. Plaintiff was incarcerated for nine years and was released only three years 7 before the alleged incident. Given the length of time Plaintiff was incarcerated and given that 8 Plaintiff was incarcerated as recently as three years prior to the alleged incident, Defendants have 9 subpoenaed all of Plaintiff’s records from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department and the 10 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation so as to determine whether or not 11 Plaintiff suffered any injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck, or upper extremities prior to the 12 alleged incident while incarcerated. Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is 13 scheduled for March 15, 2024, while trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024. 14 In order for Defendants to properly assess the alleged economic and non-economic 15 damages claimed by Plaintiff as a result of this incident, Defendants require the ability to evaluate 16 Plaintiff’s prior medical history, including Plaintiff’s medical records while incarcerated. 17 Additionally, Defendants need more than just ten days before trial to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s 18 medical records. Defendants are willing to re-issue a narrow subpoena limited only to Plaintiff’s 19 medical records while incarcerated related to his neck, lower back, mid back, and upper 20 extremities. Defendants are also willing to redact any potentially prejudicial information that may 21 accompany the release of Plaintiff’s medical records. On this basis, Defendants request the Court 22 issue an Order permitting Defendants to be heard on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash on December 12, 23 2023, or at a date the Court deems appropriate. 24 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 25 Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2020, he was struck by Defendant Gabriel Blas’s 26 vehicle while he was on his bicycle. (Reza Dec. ¶ 3). On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the 27 instant matter alleging a cause of action for general negligence and a cause of action for motor 28 vehicle negligence while making a claim for general damages. (Reza Dec. ¶ 4). On October 9, 1 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California. (Reza Dec. ¶ 5). During his deposition, 2 Plaintiff testified that he suffered injuries to his lower back, mid back, neck, and upper extremities. 3 (Reza Dec. ¶ 6). Plaintiff also testified that he was incarcerated for nine years from approximately 4 2008 to 2017 and was released from prison approximately three years prior to the alleged incident. 5 (Reza Dec. ¶ 7). On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey 6 County Sheriff’s Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 7 production of any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda. (Reza Dec. ¶ 8). On 8 December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served its Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash 9 Defendants’ Subpoena. (Reza Dec. ¶ 9). Prior to filing and serving its Motion to Quash, Plaintiff 10 served upon Defendants a settlement demand for one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) 11 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 998, which states that Defendants will have thirty 12 days to accept the offer or else the offer will be deemed withdrawn. (Reza Dec. ¶ 10). 13 Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled for March 15, 2024, while 14 trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024. (Reza Dec. ¶ 11). The subject ex parte to advance 15 the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is now necessary because Defendants will suffer 16 irreparable harm without ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial 17 (Reza Dec. ¶ 12). 18 III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION 19 Every court has the inherent power to regulate the proceedings of the matters before it and 20 to affect orderly disposition of issues presented. (Santandrea v. Siltec Corp. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 21 529, 535; Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 635-42; Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. 22 RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1116-17; Cottle v. Superior Court (1993) 3 Cal.App.4th 23 1367, 1377.) Moreover, courts have inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers. 24 “There is nothing novel in the concept that a trial court has the power to exercise reasonable 25 control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it. Such power necessarily exists 26 as one of the inherent powers of the court and such power should be exercised by the courts in 27 order to ensure the orderly administration of justice.” (Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 28 260, 264.) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(8) provides that every court has the 2 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 power to “amend and control its process and orders as to make them conform to law and justice.” 2 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c), this Court is empowered to grant ex 3 parte relief where an application makes an affirmative factual showing through a declaration 4 containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate 5 danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief. In addition, this Court has inherent power 6 to control the litigation before it at all times in the interests of justice and grant ex parte relief as 7 reasonably necessary. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 166. In short, the Code of Civil Procedure provides 8 this Court with the authority to grant Defendants’ Ex Parte Application 9 Here, good cause exists to grant Defendants’ Ex Parte Application because Defendants will 10 suffer irreparable harm without having ample opportunity to assess Plaintiff’s entire medical 11 history prior to trial on March 25, 2024. The hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled 12 for March 15, 2024. However, Defendants require an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical 13 records, even while Plaintiff was incarcerated, to properly assess Plaintiff’s Demand and prepare 14 for trial in March of 2024, which includes evaluating Plaintiff’s alleged economic and non- 15 economic damages. Defendants are willing to re-issue a new subpoena that narrowly requests only 16 medical records related to Plaintiff’s lower back, mid back, neck and upper extremities. 17 Defendants are also willing to redact any prejudicial information that may accompany the release 18 of Plaintiff’s medical records. However, Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if denied ample 19 opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial on March 25, 2024. Therefore, this 20 Ex Parte Application to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash should be granted. 21 IV. PROPER NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE APPLICATION WAS GIVEN TO ALL 22 PARTIES. 23 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203, a party seeking an ex parte order must 24 provide notice to all parties by 10:00 a.m. the court day prior to the ex parte appearance. Proper 25 notice of this application was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel on December 11, 2023. (Exhibit “A” 26 attached to Reza Decl.; Reza Decl. ¶ 13). 27 V. CONCLUSION 28 Good cause exists for the Court to advance the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash. Time is 3 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 of the essence given Defendants have until December 27, 2023, to either accept or reject Plaintiff’s 2 Demand and trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024. Therefore, Defendants will suffer irreparable 3 harm if they are not provided the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical records in advance of 4 trial. 5 Dated: December 11, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP 6 7 By: 8 Bradford G. Hughes Ryan Reza 9 Attorneys for Defendants FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC 10 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA 2 I, RYAN REZA, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of 4 California, and am a member at Clark Hill LLP, attorneys of record for defendants Gabriela 5 Gonzalez Blas and Freedom Medical Transportation, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) in the 6 above-captioned action. The information contained herein is known to me personally to be true 7 except where stated upon information and belief, in which case I believe such information to be 8 true and correct. 9 2. On December 11, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., Defendants provided notice of this Ex Parte 10 Application to Plaintiff’s counsel via e-mail. The notice states with specificity the nature of the 11 relief requested by this Ex Parte Application and attempts to determine whether Plaintiff will 12 appear to oppose this Ex Parte Application. Plaintiff’s counsel has not advised whether Plaintiff 13 will oppose this Ex Parte Application. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is a true and correct copy 14 of the correspondence providing notice. 15 3. Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2020, he was struck by Defendant Gabriel 16 Blas’s vehicle while he was on his bicycle. 17 4. On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant matter alleging a cause of action 18 for general negligence and a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for 19 general damages. 20 5. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California. 21 6. During his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he suffered injuries to his lower back, 22 mid back, neck, and upper extremities. 23 7. Plaintiff also testified that he was incarcerated for nine years from approximately 24 2008 to 2017 and was released from prison approximately three years prior to the alleged incident. 25 8. On November 17, 2023, Defendants served a subpoena upon the Monterey County 26 Sheriff’s Department and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 27 production of any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda. 28 9. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served its Motion for Protective Order and 5 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoena. 2 10. Prior to filing and serving its Motion to Quash, Plaintiff served upon Defendants a 3 settlement demand for one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) pursuant to California Code 4 of Civil Procedure § 998, which states that Defendants will have thirty days to accept the offer or 5 else the offer will be deemed withdrawn. 6 11. Furthermore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is scheduled for March 15, 7 2024, while trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2024. 8 12. The subject ex parte to advance the hearing Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is now 9 necessary because Defendants will suffer irreparable harm without ample opportunity to assess 10 Plaintiff’s medical records prior to trial. 11 13. My office has given notice of this Ex Parte Application on December 11, 2023, via 12 electronic correspondence to counsel. This notice states with specificity the nature of the relief 13 requested by this Ex Parte Application. See hereto attached Exhibit A. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 15 true and correct. 16 Executed this 11th day of December 2023, at Los Angeles, California 17 18 ______________________________ Ryan Reza 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al. 2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878 3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. 4 On December 11, 2023, I served the foregoing document, described as DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION in this action by placing 5 the original of the document 6 true copies of the document 7 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses: 8 Amir Salehi, Esq. Omega Law Group, PC 9 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 10 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263 Email: ams@omegalaw.com 11 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com Email: eservice@omegalaw.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda 13 BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelopes 14 were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 15 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the 16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date stated in this 17 proof of service. BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing 18 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed on 19 this Proof of Service the following business morning. BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e 20 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to the 21 parties as listed on this Proof of Service. STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the above 22 is true and correct. Executed on December 11, 2023 at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 Lizabeth Garcia 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274784399.v1-12/11/23 EXHIBIT A Reza, Ryan From: Reza, Ryan Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:30 AM To: Amir Salehi Cc: Hughes, Bradford G.; Garcia, Lizabeth C. Subject: Mosqueda v. Freedom Medical Transportation: Notice of Ex Parte Application on December 12, 2023 Counsel, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14 of the Monterey Courthouse, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California, 93940, defendants Gabriela Gonzalez Blas and Freedom Medical Transportation, LLC, will bring an Ex Parte Application for an Order advancing the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas. Thank you, Ryan 1