Preview
1 Colin M. Jones, Esq. SBN: 265628
Todd Drakeford, Esq. SBN:317646
2 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
3
Los Angeles, California 90010
4 Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
5 Email: colin@wilshirelawfirm.com;
tdrakeford@wilshirelawfirm.com
6 evaughn@wilshirelawfirm.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No.: S-CV-0048973
12 individual
13 PLAINTIFF DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA’S
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
Plaintiff, OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE
14 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
vs. PERFORM A FURTHER INDEPENDENT
15 MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF;
HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, and individual; [PROPOSED] ORDER
16 BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual;
17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: March 12, 2024
Defendants. Time: 8:30AM
18 Dept.: 42
19 Complaint Filed: 08/19/2022
Trial Date: April 2, 2024
20
21
Plaintiff DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits the following
22
objections to the evidence submitted by to Defendants HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT
23
SINGH TOOR’s (“Defendants”) in support of their Motion for Leave to Perform a Further Independent
24
Medical Examination as follows:
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER
2 OBJECTION NO. 1:
3 Paragraph 8 lines 6-9: “Plaintiff has also added new claims of neck or cervical spine injury or
4 pain in his recent responses to pre-trial discovery. In his amended responses to Form Interrogatories,
5 his response to 6.2 remains the same, but 6.3 is significantly expanded to include neck pain and back
6 pain.”
7 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 1:
8 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
9 This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
10 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
11 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
12 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
13 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
14 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
15 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 1:
16 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
17
OBJECTION NO. 2:
18
Paragraph 9 lines 11-15: “In response to Defendants’ special interrogatories, set two, which
19
include contention interrogatories pertaining to any possible claim of neck or lower back pain, Plaintiff
20
responds in the affirmative for the former, but in the negative to the latter. In the follow-up
21
interrogatories asking for the facts, witnesses, and documents evidencing those contentions, no specific
22
details are provided.”
23
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 2:
24
Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
25
This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
26
confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
27
Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
2 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
3 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
4 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 2:
5 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
6 OBJECTION NO. 3:
7 Paragraph 10 lines 19-21: “In response to two requests for admissions pertaining to imaging
8 evidence of cervical spine injury, Plaintiff stated that he is unable to admit or deny. His corresponding
9 response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 does not provide any specific further information.”
10 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 3:
Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
11
This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
12
confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
13
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
14
cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
15
is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
16
undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
17
RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 3:
18
SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
19
20
OBJECTIONS TO THE EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER
21
OBJECTION NO. 4:
22
Exhibit E to the Mayer Declaration.
23
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 4:
24
Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
25
This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
26
confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
27
Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
2 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
3 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
4 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 4:
5 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
6 OBJECTION NO. 5:
7 Exhibit H to the Mayer Declaration.
8 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 5:
9 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
10 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
11 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
12 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
13 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
14 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
15 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
16 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 5:
17 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
18
19 OBJECTION NO. 6:
20 Exhibit I to the Mayer Declaration.
21 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 6:
Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
22
This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
23
confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
24
Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
25
cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
26
is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
27
undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 6:
2 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
3
4 OBJECTION NO. 7:
5 Exhibit J to the Mayer Declaration.
6 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 7:
7 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
8 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024,
9 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024,
10 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or
11 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses
12 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to
13 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity.
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
14 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 7:
15 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
16
OBJECTION NO. 8:
17
Exhibit K to the Mayer Declaration.
18
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 8:
19
Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
20
This exhibit is moot and therefore irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in
21
determining whether to order Plaintiff to undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper
22
extremity.
23
RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 8:
24
SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
25
26
OBJECTION NO. 9:
27
Exhibit L to the Mayer Declaration.
28
5
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 9:
2 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350.
3 This exhibit is moot and therefore irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in
4 determining whether to order Plaintiff to undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper
5 extremity.
6 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 9:
7 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
8
9 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF SCOTT C. BERTA, M.D.
10 OBJECTION NO. 10:
11 Paragraph 4, lines 2-3: “I have received and reviewed Plaintiff’s… discovery responses...”
12 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 10:
13 Improper expert testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803; Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
14 §§403, 702; Speculation, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, 800, 801(b); Argumentative, misleading, and
15 prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.
16 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Based on Dr. Berta’s sworn testimony, he has not
17 received or reviewed Plaintiff’s February 20, 2024, discovery responses wherein Plaintiff confirms that
18 he is not making any claims for cervical/neck pain and/or injury.
19 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 10:
20 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
21
OBJECTION NO. 11:
22
Paragraph 6 in its entirety:
23 “Based on my review of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that it is reasonable, equitable, and
24 appropriate to perform a further physical examination of Plaintiff. In this regard, I am informed
and believe that, at the time Dr. Cahill examined Plaintiff, he was not then claiming neuropathic
25 injury or complex regional pain syndrome, which diagnoses were the basis of the care Dr. Lal
has provided. Plaintiff did not complain to Dr. Cahill of any neuropathic pain or other
26 symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome, though Plaintiff had been diagnosed with CRPS
by Dr. Lal on September 12, 2023. This being the case, Plaintiff’s condition in this regard could
27
not have been adequately examined by Dr. Cahill. More than that, Dr. Cahill possesses a
28 different specialty than required for complete examination and diagnosis in this regard.”
6
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 11:
2
Improper expert testimony and lay person testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803;
3
Argumentative, misleading, and prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.
4
This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Dr. Berta impermissibly admonishes Plaintiff for
5
not presenting a complicated medical diagnosis to a biased opponent during the first medical
6
examination of his left upper extremity. The fact that a lay person did not complain to an adverse expert
7
“of any neuropathic pain or other symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome,” is not indicative or
8
supportive of Defendants’ demand for another opportunity to examine Plaintiff’s upper left extremity.
9
Plaintiff is not a doctor, not in the medical field, and certainly has no reason to withhold or disclose
10
information that was not specifically requested by Defendants’ expert. To hold Plaintiff to a medical
11
reporting standard is improper as a matter of law.
12
RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 11:
13
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
14
15
OBJECTION NO. 12:
16
Paragraph 7 in its entirety:
17 “Even more, Plaintiff’s complaints and diagnoses related to CRPS and neuropathic pain
are of a materially different nature than Plaintiff’s orthopedic complaints and diagnoses
18 relating to the fracture Plaintiff sustained to his left forearm. Again, Dr. Cahill’s specialty is in
19 orthopedics, and so even if CRPS had been fully disclosed and understood by Dr. Cahill as
circumstances then existed, he still may not have been able to perform a complete examination
20 and diagnosis.”
21 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 12:
22 Argumentative, misleading, and prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.
23 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. While Dr. Berta’s area of expertise may differ
24 from Dr. Cahill’s, Dr. Berta fails to explain why he is unable to render any opinions on Plaintiff’s left
25 upper extremity based upon Dr. Cahill’s medical examination and reporting. Moreover, Dr. Berta’s
26 proposed “examination” is identical to that of Dr. Cahill’s. There are no differences to what Dr. Berta
27 wants to do versus what Dr. Cahill has already done. Accordingly, the statements are irrelevant as to
28 whether Plaintiff should be ordered to undergo a second examination of his left upper extremity.
7
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 12:
2 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
3
4 OBJECTION NO. 13:
5 Paragraph 8 in its entirety:
“Still further, from my review of Plaintiff’s responses to pre-trial discovery, I note that
6 he is making a new claim of neck pain or injury. Due to this, and the fact that Plaintiff did not
complain of any neck pain to Dr. Cahill, that aspect could not have been completely examined
7 and diagnosed by Dr. Cahill. And still further, this area of the body (the cervical spine) is
8 squarely within my specialty as a neurosurgeon, and to a lesser extent within Dr. Cahill’s.”
9 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 13:
10 Improper expert testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803; Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code
11 §§403, 702; Speculation, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, 800, 801(b); Argumentative, misleading, and
12 prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.
13 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Based on Dr. Berta’s sworn testimony, he has not
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137
3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
14 received or reviewed Plaintiff’s February 20, 2024, discovery responses wherein Plaintiff confirms that
15 he is not making any claims for cervical/neck pain and/or injury. Additionally, Dr. Berta conveniently
16 ignores the portion of Dr. Cahill’s report wherein Dr. Cahill examined Plaintiff’s cervical spine.
17 Accordingly, the statements are irrelevant as to whether Plaintiff should be ordered to undergo a second
18 examination of his left upper extremity.
19 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 13:
20 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________
21
22 DATED: March 5, 2024 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
23
24
25 By:_____________________________
Colin M. Jones, Esq.
26 Todd Drakeford, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
27
28
8
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3 Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are sustained or overruled as set forth above.
4
5 Date:_____________________________ _____________________________
6 Judge of the Superior Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
Daniel Gregory Bonilla v. HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR; BALJIT SINGH TOOR
3 Placer County Case No.: S-CV-0048973
4 I, ELLERIE M. VAUGHN, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am
over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3055 Wilshire Blvd.,
5 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010.
6
On March 5, 2024, I served the document(s) described as PLAINTIFF DANIEL
7 GREGORY BONILLA’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERFORM A FURTHER INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
8 EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested party(s) in this
action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
9
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10
(BY EMAIL) Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I
11 caused the above document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not
receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
12 transmission was unsuccessful.
13 (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collection and processing mail. Under that
practice it would be placed in this firm’s outgoing mail bin on that same day, with postage thereon fully
14 prepaid, to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion
of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
15 than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) By placing a true and correct copy of the above document(s) in a sealed
envelope addressed as indicated above and causing such envelope(s) to be delivered to the FEDERAL
17 EXPRESS delivery service and to be delivered by the next business day to the address(s) designated.
18 (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth above.
19
Executed on March 5, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
20
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 above is true and correct.
22
/s/Ellerie M. Vaughn
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
SERVICE LIST
2 Daniel Gregory Bonilla v. HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an
individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
3 Case No.: S-CV0048973
4
Daniel R. Mayer, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants,
5 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual;
HIRSIG & GRAY BALJIT SINGH TOOR
6 639 Kentucky Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
7 Tel: (707) 427-3998
Fax: (707) 427-0268
8 Daniel.Mayer@mcnamaralaw.com
liesl.swartwood@mcnamaralaw.com
9 heather.permison@mcnamaralaw.com
peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Colin M. Jones, Esq. SBN: 265628 Todd Drakeford, Esq. SBN:317646 2 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90010 4 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 5 Email: colin@wilshirelawfirm.com; tdrakeford@wilshirelawfirm.com 6 evaughn@wilshirelawfirm.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No.: S-CV-0048973 12 individual 13 PLAINTIFF DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA’S Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC Plaintiff, OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE 14 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO vs. PERFORM A FURTHER INDEPENDENT 15 MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF; HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, and individual; [PROPOSED] ORDER 16 BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; 17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: March 12, 2024 Defendants. Time: 8:30AM 18 Dept.: 42 19 Complaint Filed: 08/19/2022 Trial Date: April 2, 2024 20 21 Plaintiff DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits the following 22 objections to the evidence submitted by to Defendants HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT 23 SINGH TOOR’s (“Defendants”) in support of their Motion for Leave to Perform a Further Independent 24 Medical Examination as follows: 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER 2 OBJECTION NO. 1: 3 Paragraph 8 lines 6-9: “Plaintiff has also added new claims of neck or cervical spine injury or 4 pain in his recent responses to pre-trial discovery. In his amended responses to Form Interrogatories, 5 his response to 6.2 remains the same, but 6.3 is significantly expanded to include neck pain and back 6 pain.” 7 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 1: 8 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 9 This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 10 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 11 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 12 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 13 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 14 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 15 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 1: 16 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 17 OBJECTION NO. 2: 18 Paragraph 9 lines 11-15: “In response to Defendants’ special interrogatories, set two, which 19 include contention interrogatories pertaining to any possible claim of neck or lower back pain, Plaintiff 20 responds in the affirmative for the former, but in the negative to the latter. In the follow-up 21 interrogatories asking for the facts, witnesses, and documents evidencing those contentions, no specific 22 details are provided.” 23 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 2: 24 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 25 This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 26 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 27 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 2 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 3 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 4 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 2: 5 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 6 OBJECTION NO. 3: 7 Paragraph 10 lines 19-21: “In response to two requests for admissions pertaining to imaging 8 evidence of cervical spine injury, Plaintiff stated that he is unable to admit or deny. His corresponding 9 response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 does not provide any specific further information.” 10 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 3: Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 11 This paragraph is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 12 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 13 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 14 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 15 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 16 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 17 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 3: 18 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 19 20 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER 21 OBJECTION NO. 4: 22 Exhibit E to the Mayer Declaration. 23 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 4: 24 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 25 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 26 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 27 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 2 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 3 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 4 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 4: 5 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 6 OBJECTION NO. 5: 7 Exhibit H to the Mayer Declaration. 8 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 5: 9 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 10 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 11 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 12 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 13 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 14 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 15 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 16 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 5: 17 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 18 19 OBJECTION NO. 6: 20 Exhibit I to the Mayer Declaration. 21 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 6: Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 22 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 23 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 24 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 25 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 26 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 27 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 6: 2 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 3 4 OBJECTION NO. 7: 5 Exhibit J to the Mayer Declaration. 6 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 7: 7 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 8 This exhibit is moot. Plaintiff amended his discovery responses on February 8, 2024, 9 confirming that he is not making any injury claims related to his back. Further, on February 20, 2024, 10 Plaintiff submitted additional discovery responses confirming that he is not making claims of neck or 11 cervical spine injury/pain. Any reliance or reference to prior versions of Plaintiff’s discovery responses 12 is irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in determining whether to order Plaintiff to 13 undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper extremity. Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 14 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 7: 15 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 16 OBJECTION NO. 8: 17 Exhibit K to the Mayer Declaration. 18 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 8: 19 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 20 This exhibit is moot and therefore irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in 21 determining whether to order Plaintiff to undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper 22 extremity. 23 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 8: 24 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 25 26 OBJECTION NO. 9: 27 Exhibit L to the Mayer Declaration. 28 5 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 9: 2 Misleading, Cal. Evid. Code § 352.; Irrelevant, Cal. Evid. Code § 210, 350. 3 This exhibit is moot and therefore irrelevant, prejudicial, and must not be considered in 4 determining whether to order Plaintiff to undergo a second, duplicative examination of his left upper 5 extremity. 6 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 9: 7 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 8 9 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF SCOTT C. BERTA, M.D. 10 OBJECTION NO. 10: 11 Paragraph 4, lines 2-3: “I have received and reviewed Plaintiff’s… discovery responses...” 12 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 10: 13 Improper expert testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803; Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 14 §§403, 702; Speculation, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, 800, 801(b); Argumentative, misleading, and 15 prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352. 16 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Based on Dr. Berta’s sworn testimony, he has not 17 received or reviewed Plaintiff’s February 20, 2024, discovery responses wherein Plaintiff confirms that 18 he is not making any claims for cervical/neck pain and/or injury. 19 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 10: 20 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 21 OBJECTION NO. 11: 22 Paragraph 6 in its entirety: 23 “Based on my review of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that it is reasonable, equitable, and 24 appropriate to perform a further physical examination of Plaintiff. In this regard, I am informed and believe that, at the time Dr. Cahill examined Plaintiff, he was not then claiming neuropathic 25 injury or complex regional pain syndrome, which diagnoses were the basis of the care Dr. Lal has provided. Plaintiff did not complain to Dr. Cahill of any neuropathic pain or other 26 symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome, though Plaintiff had been diagnosed with CRPS by Dr. Lal on September 12, 2023. This being the case, Plaintiff’s condition in this regard could 27 not have been adequately examined by Dr. Cahill. More than that, Dr. Cahill possesses a 28 different specialty than required for complete examination and diagnosis in this regard.” 6 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 11: 2 Improper expert testimony and lay person testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803; 3 Argumentative, misleading, and prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352. 4 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Dr. Berta impermissibly admonishes Plaintiff for 5 not presenting a complicated medical diagnosis to a biased opponent during the first medical 6 examination of his left upper extremity. The fact that a lay person did not complain to an adverse expert 7 “of any neuropathic pain or other symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome,” is not indicative or 8 supportive of Defendants’ demand for another opportunity to examine Plaintiff’s upper left extremity. 9 Plaintiff is not a doctor, not in the medical field, and certainly has no reason to withhold or disclose 10 information that was not specifically requested by Defendants’ expert. To hold Plaintiff to a medical 11 reporting standard is improper as a matter of law. 12 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 11: 13 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 14 15 OBJECTION NO. 12: 16 Paragraph 7 in its entirety: 17 “Even more, Plaintiff’s complaints and diagnoses related to CRPS and neuropathic pain are of a materially different nature than Plaintiff’s orthopedic complaints and diagnoses 18 relating to the fracture Plaintiff sustained to his left forearm. Again, Dr. Cahill’s specialty is in 19 orthopedics, and so even if CRPS had been fully disclosed and understood by Dr. Cahill as circumstances then existed, he still may not have been able to perform a complete examination 20 and diagnosis.” 21 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 12: 22 Argumentative, misleading, and prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352. 23 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. While Dr. Berta’s area of expertise may differ 24 from Dr. Cahill’s, Dr. Berta fails to explain why he is unable to render any opinions on Plaintiff’s left 25 upper extremity based upon Dr. Cahill’s medical examination and reporting. Moreover, Dr. Berta’s 26 proposed “examination” is identical to that of Dr. Cahill’s. There are no differences to what Dr. Berta 27 wants to do versus what Dr. Cahill has already done. Accordingly, the statements are irrelevant as to 28 whether Plaintiff should be ordered to undergo a second examination of his left upper extremity. 7 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 12: 2 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 3 4 OBJECTION NO. 13: 5 Paragraph 8 in its entirety: “Still further, from my review of Plaintiff’s responses to pre-trial discovery, I note that 6 he is making a new claim of neck pain or injury. Due to this, and the fact that Plaintiff did not complain of any neck pain to Dr. Cahill, that aspect could not have been completely examined 7 and diagnosed by Dr. Cahill. And still further, this area of the body (the cervical spine) is 8 squarely within my specialty as a neurosurgeon, and to a lesser extent within Dr. Cahill’s.” 9 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION NO. 13: 10 Improper expert testimony, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800-803; Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code 11 §§403, 702; Speculation, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, 800, 801(b); Argumentative, misleading, and 12 prejudicial, Cal. Evid. Code § 352. 13 This statement is misleading and prejudicial. Based on Dr. Berta’s sworn testimony, he has not Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 14 received or reviewed Plaintiff’s February 20, 2024, discovery responses wherein Plaintiff confirms that 15 he is not making any claims for cervical/neck pain and/or injury. Additionally, Dr. Berta conveniently 16 ignores the portion of Dr. Cahill’s report wherein Dr. Cahill examined Plaintiff’s cervical spine. 17 Accordingly, the statements are irrelevant as to whether Plaintiff should be ordered to undergo a second 18 examination of his left upper extremity. 19 RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 13: 20 SUSTAINED:__________ OVERRULED:__________ 21 22 DATED: March 5, 2024 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 23 24 25 By:_____________________________ Colin M. Jones, Esq. 26 Todd Drakeford, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 28 8 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 3 Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are sustained or overruled as set forth above. 4 5 Date:_____________________________ _____________________________ 6 Judge of the Superior Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Daniel Gregory Bonilla v. HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR; BALJIT SINGH TOOR 3 Placer County Case No.: S-CV-0048973 4 I, ELLERIE M. VAUGHN, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 5 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010. 6 On March 5, 2024, I served the document(s) described as PLAINTIFF DANIEL 7 GREGORY BONILLA’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERFORM A FURTHER INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 8 EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested party(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 10 (BY EMAIL) Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I 11 caused the above document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the 12 transmission was unsuccessful. 13 (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collection and processing mail. Under that practice it would be placed in this firm’s outgoing mail bin on that same day, with postage thereon fully 14 prepaid, to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more 15 than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 16 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) By placing a true and correct copy of the above document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above and causing such envelope(s) to be delivered to the FEDERAL 17 EXPRESS delivery service and to be delivered by the next business day to the address(s) designated. 18 (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. 19 Executed on March 5, 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 20 (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 above is true and correct. 22 /s/Ellerie M. Vaughn 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Daniel Gregory Bonilla v. HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 3 Case No.: S-CV0048973 4 Daniel R. Mayer, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, 5 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; HIRSIG & GRAY BALJIT SINGH TOOR 6 639 Kentucky Street Fairfield, CA 94533 7 Tel: (707) 427-3998 Fax: (707) 427-0268 8 Daniel.Mayer@mcnamaralaw.com liesl.swartwood@mcnamaralaw.com 9 heather.permison@mcnamaralaw.com peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PROOF OF SERVICE