Sacramento Physicians Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 4 of 5
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Evidence set forth in the declaration of John J. Green filed with this objection establishes that the Judge repeatedly and knowingly:
a. violated Plaintiffs' rights due process;
b. violated controlling statute and case authority in an effort to frustrate and delay Plaintiff's trial preparation.
A. INTENTIONALLY & REPEATEDLY VIOLATED CONTROLLING LAW IN ORDER TO FAVOR THE DEFENSE AND FRUSTRATE PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL PREPARATION
On July 5, 2005, the parties appeared before Judge Smith on Defendant White's ex parte application to quash Plaintiff's duly noticed deposition of treating medical malpractice experts, Drs. Mary Bean and Dr. Stanley Brown. Both of these experts were identified in the parties CCP §2034 exchange. CCP §2025(d) gave Plaintiff the right to depose these experts up to the 15th day prior to trial.
The Judge acknowledged the law and Plaintiff's right to depose the experts, however, he then entertained a request by non-party expert, Stanley Brown's attorney, to have the deposition at Dr. Brown's office instead of at the court reporter's office in downtown Sacramento where it was duly noticed. Plaintiff explained that in light of the fact that Dr. Brown's deposition was going to be tape recorded and Dr. Jones's deposition was scheduled before Brown's and would conclude minutes before Brown's was to begin that it would be logistically impossible to take Brown's deposition at Brown's office to begin at 11:30 am as noticed.
Notwithstanding the fact that there had been no prior notice of any request by any person to change the location of Brown's deposition before the hearing before Judge Smith, the Judge ordered that Brown's deposition be taken at Brown's office.
Further, although there had been no prior notice of a request by an person that the amount of time of Brown's deposition be limited, the Judge ordered that it be limited to two (2) hours, and that it be taken during Brown's lunch break.
Further, although Dr. Jones was not represented at the hearing and had made no request of any kind of the court the Judge initially indicated that her deposition be taken at her office. When the undersigned was permitted to address the Court and informed Judge Smith that Dr. Jones had informed the undersigned that the day of her noticed deposition, viz., July 7, 2005, was her day off from work and indicated no objection to the location of the deposition, the Judge changed his order and stated that her deposition could be taken at the place noticed. However, he voluntarily ordered that her deposition should be limited to three (3) hours time.
In light of the trial call scheduled for July 27, 2005, the undersigned respectfully explained to the Judge that his sua sponte change of the location of Dr. Brown's deposition would throw a monkey wrench into Plaintiff's trial preparation the Judge simply responded. Well you'll have to work it out. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.