EXHIBIT(S) - A (Motion #1) - transcript July 15, 2024 (2024)

 Preview
 FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 1 2 SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF STEUBEN 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X CHERYL MASTIN and EUGENE MASTIN, 4 Plaintiffs, -vs- 5 ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, WOMEN'S HEALTH OF 6 WESTERN NEW YORK, P.C. and TAHIR CHAUHDRY, D.O., 7 Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 8 Index No. E2023-0069CV 9 10 11 Examination before trial of ROBERT D. AMBROSINI, 12 MD, taken pursuant to notice in the law office of 13 Osborn, Reed & Burke, LLP, 120 Allens Creek Road, 14 Suite 150, Rochester, New York, on Monday, 15 May 20, 2024, commencing at 10:03 a.m. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Reported by: 22 COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE 23 Kimberly A. Bonsignore 24 70 Linden Oaks, Third Floor 25 Rochester, New York 14625 (585) 325-3170 COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 2 2 APPEARANCES: 3 LACY KATZEN LLP By: JACQUELINE M. THOMAS, Esq. 4 600 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, New York 14604 5 jthomas@lacykatzen.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP By: AIMÉE LAFEVER KOCH, Esq. 8 120 Allens Creek Road, Suite 150 Rochester, New York 14618 9 alk@orblaw.com Attorneys for Defendants 10 St. James Hospital, The University of Rochester, 11 Women's Health of Western New York, PC 12 BARGNESI BRITT PLLC By: JULIE BARGNESI, Esq. (Remote) 13 350 Main Street, Suite 1105 Buffalo, New York 14202 14 bargnesi@bargnesi.com Attorneys for Defendant 15 Tahir Chauhdry, DO 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 3 2 INDEX 3 Robert D. Ambrosini, MD 4 Examination by Ms. Thomas 4-108 5 6 Reporter Certificate 109 7 Witness Certificate 110 8 Errata Sheet 111 9 10 EXHIBITS 11 A Medical Chart 4 12 A1 Medical Record - Bates-stamped 71 and 72 28 13 B Curriculum Vitae 7 14 15 (Exhibits retained by the Court Reporter to be returned to Attorney Thomas) 16 17 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 18 Was your failure to report subcutaneous air 19 in the abdomen a departure from the standard of care? 84 20 Do you believe it should have been done? 101 21 * * * 22 23 24 25 COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 4 2 It is hereby stipulated by and among the attorneys 3 for the respective parties herein; that the filing of 4 the transcript be waived; that any and all objections 5 except as to the form of the question be reserved 6 until the time of trial; 7 It is further stipulated that the oath and 8 presence of the Referee be waived, and that Kimberly 9 A. Bonsignore, Notary Public, may swear in the 10 witness. 11 (Exhibit A - Medical Chart - marked for 12 identification.) 13 ROBERT D. AMBROSINI, MD, 14 called herein as a witness, first being sworn, 15 testified as follows: 16 EXAMINATION BY MS. THOMAS: 17 Q. Good morning. 18 A. Good morning. 19 Q. My name is Jacqueline Thomas. I represent 20 Cheryl and Eugene Mastin in this action. 21 Just by way of housekeeping before we get started, 22 I anticipate that you may wish to refer to the medical 23 chart today during your testimony. The entire 24 certified St. James Hospital medical chart has been 25 marked as Exhibit A. It's available to you COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 5 2 electronically, should you need to reference it during 3 your testimony. 4 I would just ask that if you reference something, 5 you let me know what page you're looking at. Okay? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I've also taken the liberty of extracting and 8 printing certain pages that are more relevant to the 9 radiology that I kind of anticipate you'll wish to look 10 at. I've marked those as Exhibit A1. You'll see, in 11 the lower right-hand corner, it's got the pagination 12 from the main chart so you know where it is. 13 There may be highlights in these pages in Exhibit 14 A1. Those are my highlights just made for -- to call 15 your attention to certain parts. They were not in the 16 original chart. 17 There may also be a handwritten page number here 18 and there, and that's because, for some reason, the 19 pagination was not legible. 20 Okay? Any questions about that? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Great. 23 So can you state your name for the record, please? 24 A. Robert Ambrosini. 25 Q. Do you use a middle initial? COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 6 2 A. I have one. I do not use it. 3 Q. And what is your date of birth, sir? 4 A. XXXXX80. 5 Q. And are you a physician licensed to practice 6 medicine in the state of New York? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And when did you obtain your medical license 9 in New York? 10 A. In New York, I would have to look that up. 11 I've had it since I was a radiology resident. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. So I would have -- I would have gotten it 14 somewhere in the period of time between, let's say, 15 2013 and 2015. I would have to look it up, but I've 16 had it for at least a decade, I think -- I believe. 17 Q. Would that be on your curriculum vitae? 18 A. It might be. I could look it up in my email 19 because I have to send a copy of it in every year, but 20 I think it would just have the most recent update. The 21 first year that I got it I think I would have to look 22 at -- I haven't thought about that year in a while. 23 Q. I didn't think it would be a hard question. 24 A. Sorry. 25 Q. No, no, no. It's okay. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 7 2 A. Sorry. 3 (Exhibit B - Curriculum Vitae - marked for 4 identification.) 5 Q. So your attorney has given us a copy of your 6 CV. We'll mark that as Exhibit B. 7 Does that refresh your recollection? Where was -- 8 I'm looking at it upside down here. 9 A. Because you had asked when I got my New York 10 State -- 2015. There you go. 11 Q. There we go. Perfect. 12 And are you licensed in any other states? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And what is your area of specialty? 15 A. Radiology. I'm a cardiothoracic radiologist, 16 but I'm trained in all of radiology. 17 Q. What is a cardiothoracic radiologist? 18 A. At our practice at Strong, we read the chest 19 CTs, the cardiac MRI imaging, the cardiac CT imaging, 20 and the radiographs. That's my day job. I also read 21 basically all of radiology. 22 Q. When you say that's your day job, do you have 23 a night job? 24 A. We take call outside of our normal -- and so 25 the way call is generally structured is you would -- COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 8 2 readouts during -- Monday through Friday during the 3 day, we have a lot more radiologists. So we're all 4 structured into subspecialties. 5 When you go into the evenings or weekends or 6 overnights, you then read a larger scope of imaging 7 because there's less people working. And that's pretty 8 standard. 9 Q. And that's when you were on call? 10 A. On call, yeah. 11 Q. How often are you on call? 12 A. We work an evening shift on average every two 13 weeks, and then -- weekend shifts can vary widely. 14 Some people work a handful of weekend shifts. I 15 personally work most weekends. I do a lot of weekend 16 calls. That's a pretty standard thing for me. 17 Q. And when you're on call, is there a hospital 18 that you're on call with? Is that limited to Strong 19 Memorial, or how does that work? 20 A. No. You would cover whatever part of the 21 practice you are assigned to. So you may be covering 22 Strong, St. James, Noyes, Jones Memorial, FF Thompson, 23 Highland Hospital, depending on which you've been 24 partitioned off to. 25 So there's different varieties of call where, okay, COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 9 2 these are your hospitals. And then we have dozens and 3 dozens of urgent cares that you would also read for, 4 and they're assigned to whoever they're assigned to. 5 Q. Okay. And when you're on call and could be 6 called upon to read from any of these locations, do you 7 physically go to that location? 8 A. No, you do not. You would read from -- you 9 would read remotely from most locations, unless you 10 were doing -- unless you are someone who does a 11 procedure or something else, then you would physically 12 go there. 13 But for the majority of people you read remotely, 14 you would read from Strong or -- just because you need 15 a workstation that you know is going to work and can 16 meet QA requirements and everything else. 17 Q. So typically you do that from Strong? 18 A. You can. Since COVID in 2020, most people 19 would have a home workstation. So you could do it from 20 home or you could do it from any of the facilities that 21 have workstations. 22 Q. Okay. A basic question. What is a 23 radiologist? 24 A. Okay. A radiologist is someone who is trained 25 to read imaging studies. Imaging being radiographs, COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 10 2 CTs, MRIs, ultrasounds, nuclear medicine. It's someone 3 who went to medical school, did residency, 4 did generally a fellowship and is trained to read 5 imaging. It could also be someone who does procedures 6 for interventional radiologists. 7 Q. And, Doctor, do you understand that you are 8 here today to testify about your involvement in the 9 care and treatment rendered to Cheryl Mastin at the 10 St. James Hospital in September of 2020? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And when was your first involvement in 13 her care? 14 A. It would have been when I read the radiographs 15 in September of 2020, if that meets the definition of 16 involvement and care. 17 Q. Was that on September 6th? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did you have any involvement in her care after 20 September 6th? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Have you had any conversations with 23 anyone, other than your attorney, about the lawsuit 24 involving Cheryl Mastin? 25 A. No. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 11 2 Q. Have you had any conversation with any other 3 medical provider about Cheryl Mastin since your 4 involvement on September 6, 2020? 5 A. No. 6 Q. When did you first become aware of the 7 litigation involving Cheryl Mastin? 8 A. I believe I received an email. Last summer 9 was the first I would have heard of it, although the 10 years -- I believe it was last summer. It could have 11 been two summers ago, but I thought it was last summer. 12 Q. And without telling me anything that was said 13 in the email, if it was from your attorney -- was the 14 email from your attorney or was it from someone else? 15 MS. KOCH: It would have been from my 16 office. 17 A. Yeah. It would have been from this office, 18 yeah. 19 Q. Sorry. I didn't mean to be confusing. 20 A. No. No. 21 Q. Are you generally aware of the allegations 22 involved in the litigation? 23 A. Generally aware, yes. 24 Q. So are you aware that Mrs. Mastin alleges that 25 she suffered perforations to her bowel during her COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 12 2 hysterectomy that was performed at St. James Hospital 3 on September 4, 2020? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that those perforations went undiagnosed 6 until after she left St. James Hospital on September 7 9th. Are you aware of that? 8 A. No, I'm not. 9 Q. Just the allegations? 10 A. I'm aware of the allegations, yes. 11 Q. And were you aware of those allegations at the 12 time that you prepared for your testimony today? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Did you review anything to prepare for 15 your deposition today? 16 A. I reviewed the reports from the radiographs 17 that I read in September 2020. 18 THE WITNESS: Is it okay -- sorry. 19 MS. KOCH: Do you have a question? 20 THE WITNESS: I got a text message on my 21 phone. I'm sorry. 22 MS. THOMAS: We'll take a quick break. 23 (Discussion held off the record.) 24 BY MS. THOMAS: 25 Q. Okay. So you said that you reviewed some COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 13 2 reports of some radiographs from September 6, 2020. 3 Did you look at any other part of the medical chart? 4 A. I did not. 5 Q. Did you create any other notes concerning 6 Cheryl Mastin, other than reports from the radiographs? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you look at the images from the abdominal 9 x-ray of Cheryl Mastin taken on September 6, 2020, in 10 preparation for your deposition? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And did you look at the images from the 13 chest x-ray for Cheryl Mastin taken on the same date in 14 preparation for your deposition? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you take any notes during that review? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you look at any other images related to 19 Cheryl Mastin? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Other than the two reports from the images on 22 September 6, 2020, do you have any other records or 23 notes concerning Cheryl Mastin? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you have any texts, emails, or any other COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 14 2 communications with other providers about Cheryl 3 Mastin? 4 A. No. 5 Q. In preparation for your deposition, did you 6 speak with anyone other than your attorney? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you speak with any other medical provider 9 about Cheryl Mastin since learning that you would be 10 deposed? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you know Cheryl Mastin? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you know Gene Mastin, her husband? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you ever met either one of them? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. We took a look at Exhibit B a little 19 earlier, Doctor. Can you identify that this is your 20 CV? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And are its contents accurate? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And are they up to date? 25 A. Yes. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 15 2 Q. And it appears from your résumé that you 3 graduated from medical school in 2011? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And you completed your residency in 2016? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And you completed a fellowship in 2017? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Doctor, are you board-certified in any field 10 of medicine? 11 A. Yes. In radiology. 12 Q. When did you become board-certified in 13 radiology? 14 A. It probably says it on my CV. I would 15 guess -- 16 Q. Feel free to take a look. 17 A. Sorry. The years all blur together. 18 It would have been, I believe, 2018, because you 19 are considered -- you take the board-certifying exam 20 the year after you finish fellowship. So it should say 21 here somewhere, but I believe the year was 2018. 22 Q. I may have missed it. I didn't see it on 23 there. 24 A. Yeah, it may not say that specifically, but I 25 am certified with the ABR. I completed the exams. The COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 16 2 exam that's called the certifying exam, the final exam 3 that we take, would have been the year -- so if I 4 finished fellowship in 2017, which I did, then the 5 following year. So 2018. 6 Q. Great. 7 And just briefly I would like to talk about your 8 employment history. 9 Since you've completed your educational training, 10 it looks like you've held various positions with the 11 University of Rochester since 2017. Is that fair? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And it says you've been the program director 14 of the cardiothoracic radiology fellowship program 15 since 2017? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What is that exactly? 18 A. Before you become a radiologist, the majority 19 of people do a fellowship year, which is -- after you 20 complete residency, you do an additional year of 21 training generally in the subspecialty that you are 22 then going to become an attending in, and so I'm the 23 director of that fellowship. 24 So it's a one year additional training program 25 after residency, and so I would interview and then COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 17 2 supervise fellows specifically in cardiothoracic 3 radiology. 4 Q. And do you have teaching responsibilities as 5 part of that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. According to your CV, you've also been the 8 medical director of URMC Imaging since 2020. 9 A. I am the medical director of the East River 10 Road outpatient imaging facility. There are multiple 11 medical directors within the department, and I'm 12 specifically the medical director of that facility on 13 East River Road. 14 Q. And that's a facility owned by the University 15 of Rochester? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. When in 2020 did you start that position? I 18 think it just says 2020. 19 A. It would have -- I would have been given that 20 position in either May or June because it was related 21 to COVID. They needed a medical director on that site 22 to make decisions regarding operations in light of 23 COVID. 24 Q. You kind of anticipated my next question. 25 What are your duties and responsibilities? COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 18 2 A. As a physician, who is a medical director, I 3 do not have a hand in the day-to-day operations. There 4 is a clinical manager who basically runs the building. 5 So my role as medical director is, if they have 6 questions or problems where they specifically need a 7 physician to be involved, I will get involved. 8 And that can be calling patients, calling doctors. 9 That can just be making decisions. I get asked 10 questions like should we still give away free coffee 11 and things like that. But it's basically -- the answer 12 is yes. 13 It's basically to have a physician available to the 14 people who are doing the day-to-day operations of the 15 building, if they need a physician. 16 Q. Do you get called upon to make decisions 17 related to reading of imaging? 18 A. In general, no. In general, the building is 19 structured with radiologists of various subspecialties, 20 and so that would be -- my role as a cardiothoracic 21 radiologist, I would be involved in reading that 22 imaging as part of my normal job, but I would not have 23 a hand in the radiologists doing their jobs and their 24 subspecialties. 25 Q. Do you have any kind of supervisory role? COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 19 2 A. To an extent, yes. If there is an issue -- 3 for example, if a technologist complained that a 4 resident was rude to them, I would talk to that 5 resident and say don't be rude to that technologist. 6 Q. Do you have any kind of supervisory role with 7 respect to medical services rendered? 8 A. No, I would not put it that way. 9 Q. Do you have privileges at any hospitals? 10 A. I do. 11 Q. Which hospitals? 12 A. So Strong, FF Thompson, Strong West Medical 13 Center, Noyes, Highland Hospital. My CV still lists 14 Auburn. We no longer -- I may technically still have 15 privileges there, but we no longer read for Auburn 16 Memorial Hospital. 17 Q. St. James? 18 A. My CV does not list St. James, but I do have 19 privileges at St. James. I apologize for that. 20 Q. That's okay. 21 A. That can be confirmed through the department, 22 but I do read imaging for St. James. And also Jones 23 Memorial Hospital is not listed there, but I also have 24 privileges there. 25 Q. How long have you had privileges at St. James? COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 20 2 A. I believe we started reading -- so it would be 3 an expectation of any radiologist that works for our 4 department to have privileges at those hospitals 5 because they're hospitals that we routinely cover. 6 I would have had -- I believe St. James was one of 7 our facilities when I became an attending. So I would 8 have gotten those privileges in that year of 2018 when 9 I got privileges with every other hospital. I believe 10 we've had St. James for that long as one of our 11 hospitals for radiology. 12 Q. Other than having privileges there, do you 13 have any formal relationship with St. James Hospital? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. Or the question really is, in September 16 of 2020, did you have any -- 17 A. No. Our relationship is that they do imaging, 18 we see it in our PACS, and we read it the same as any 19 other location that we would read for. 20 Q. And as of September of 2020, was St. James 21 part of the University of Rochester hospital system? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. And in September of 2020, were you an 24 employee of the University of Rochester? 25 A. Yes. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 21 2 Q. And was that in the same position as you hold 3 today? 4 A. Yes, with the caveat of at that time I would 5 have been the level of assistant professor and now I'm 6 an associate professor, which is probably something 7 that only matters to us, not to the world at large. 8 But, yes, for the most part. 9 Q. And in September of 2020, you were employed as 10 a radiologist for the University of Rochester? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So in September of 2020, you said that you 13 were an assistant professor for the University of 14 Rochester. 15 You've been on the U of R Medical Center faculty 16 since 2017. Is that fair? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And do you teach medical students on the topic 19 of interpreting medical imaging? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you teach doctors on that same topic? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have you taught or lectured on the topic of 24 radiologic signs of bowel perforation? 25 A. Yes. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 22 2 Q. When? 3 A. We work with trainees, medical students, 4 residents, fellows, PAs at the workstation. And so it 5 is a daily thing -- it is a daily activity, where you 6 sit with trainees and you go through imaging, and you 7 would show them on the imaging that you're reading 8 findings. So a finding that you would potentially -- 9 over the years, you would show someone the signs of 10 bowel perforation. 11 Q. Okay. So this is kind of day-to-day training 12 in the trenches, so to speak? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Have you ever formally lectured in a classroom 15 on that topic? 16 A. No, I have never formally lectured on bowel 17 perforation. 18 Q. Have you ever used any written materials with 19 your students on that topic? 20 A. No. Not that specific topic, no. 21 Q. Would you agree, Doctor, that a radiologist 22 should note all abnormal findings in a radiology 23 report? 24 MS. KOCH: Form. 25 You can answer if you understand the COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 23 2 question. 3 A. No, I don't agree that every abnormal finding 4 needs to be in a radiology report. 5 Q. Why not? 6 A. Radiology reports are often very -- I'll 7 rephrase that. 8 There are abnormal findings that are of no 9 significance, and that's a larger topic. I do not 10 believe every single abnormal finding has to be in a 11 radiology report. 12 Q. Can you give me some examples of radiologic 13 findings that are of no significance that you would not 14 include in a report? 15 A. If I had lung cancer and was getting a CT 16 chest to follow my lung cancer, I would not put in 17 every CT chest that was ever read on me that I have a 18 tiny calcification on my skin, which is technically an 19 abnormal finding, but it's a finding that is not of any 20 use to the patient or the referer and has been there 21 for years and years and years. I would not expect that 22 abnormal finding to necessarily be included in every 23 report that patient ever -- 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. -- has read. COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 24 2 Q. So if you were asked to review, using your 3 example, imaging of lungs, would you report all 4 abnormal findings related to the lungs? 5 A. If that was intended as a "yes" or "no" 6 question, I would still say no. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. A person, for example, who has lung cancer may 9 have dozens and dozens of abnormal lung findings, and 10 the ones related to lung cancer would be significant 11 and useful, and then other findings over time, as the 12 person continues to get follow-up CT imaging over the 13 years, if they don't change and they're not related to 14 the patient's treatment, I do not feel that they 15 necessarily would need to be overtly stated in every 16 single report. 17 Q. And how do you determine, Doctor, which 18 abnormal findings are significant or useful as opposed 19 to those that aren't? 20 A. Findings that change are generally significant 21 or useful. Findings that are directly related to 22 the -- the reason that the test -- the imaging is being 23 done are generally useful, whether they've changed or 24 not, and any new findings. 25 Q. How about if the patient does not have prior COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 25 2 imaging? 3 A. If this is the first-ever imaging study on 4 that patient that we see, in that case I would be more 5 inclined to mention the full breadth of abnormal 6 findings. 7 Q. Would you agree, Doctor, that even abnormal 8 findings that might be anticipated can be of medical 9 significance to other providers? 10 MS. KOCH: Form. 11 Do you understand the question? 12 THE WITNESS: I do not. 13 MS. KOCH: Okay. 14 MS. THOMAS: Aimée, if you could limit 15 your objection to form. You don't need to coach the 16 witness to say he doesn't understand the question. 17 MS. KOCH: I'm not coaching him. I just 18 would have said that if he understood it to go ahead 19 and answer it. 20 MS. THOMAS: I understand, but the rules 21 say you have to limit your objections. 22 MS. KOCH: I understand, Jackie. Just 23 move on. Ask your question. 24 Q. What don't you understand, Doctor? 25 A. I'm sorry. I lost -- COMPUTER REPORTING SERVICE (585) 325-3170FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 07:52 PM INDEX NO. E2023-0069CVNYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 1 R. Ambrosini, MD - Examination by Ms. Thomas 26 2 Q. Let me repeat the question for you. 3 A. Yes, please. 4 Q. Would you agree that even abnormal findings 5 that might be anticipated can be of medical 6 significance to other providers? 7 A. I do not understand the use of the word 8 "anticipate" in that question. 9 Q. If I have a patient who has plates or screws 10 or hardware that were placed during a surgery, those 11 would be anticipated; correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. And is that an abnormal finding, plates 14 and screws and hardware? 15 A. It is an abnormal finding. 16 Q. Could such an abnormal finding, even though 17 it's anticipated, be of medical significance to another 18 medical provider? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So, for example, would you always report the 21 presence of a surgical clip on imaging? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Why not? 24 A. Patients cou

Related Contentin Steuben County

Case

Patrick R. White v. Emily M. White

Jul 16, 2024 |Matrimonial - Uncontested |Matrimonial - Uncontested |E2024-0832CV

Case

Charles Butler v. Todd J Smith

Jul 16, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |E2024-0830CV

Case

Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Kory E. Dickerson, Lora J. Dabney, Capital One, N.A. Successor By Merger To Capital One Bank (Usa), N.A., Administrator Of The U.S. Small Business Administration, An Agency Of The Government Of The United States Of America, John Doe

Jul 16, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |E2024-0831CV

Case

American Express National Bank v. Shauna Brongo aka Shauna L Brongo, Roc Games, Llc

Jul 15, 2024 |Other Matters - Contract - Other |Other Matters - Contract - Other |E2024-0825CV

Case

In the Matter of the Application of United Presbyterian Church for Approval to Sell Real Property Located at No #, State Route 21, Hornell, NY 14843 Pursuant to Article 12 of the Religious Corporation Law and Section 511 and 511-a of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law

Jul 16, 2024 |Jason Cook |Other Matters - Sale or Finance of Religious/Not for Profit Property |Other Matters - Sale or Finance of Religious/Not for Profit Property |E2024-0827CV

Case

First Heritage Federal Credit Union v. Thorn T. Bush

Jul 15, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |E2024-0824CV

Case

Wellsville Manor, Llc d/b/a WELLSVILLE MANOR CARE CENTER v. Earl Parker, Elizabeth Parker

Jul 16, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |E2024-0833CV

Case

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Owner Trustee For Loan Acquisition Trust 2017-Rpl1 v. Gary L. Updyke, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Owner Trustee For Loan Acquisition Trust 2017-Rpl1, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, The Last Ten Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To The Plaintiff, The Person Or Parties Intended Being The Persons Or Parties, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises Described In The Complaint

Jul 16, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |E2024-0834CV

Ruling

MARY ERICKSON VS INTERCITY FELLOWSHIP HALL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Jul 15, 2024 |23STCV07980

Case Number: 23STCV07980 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 mary erickson ; Plaintiff, vs. intercity fellowship hall , et al.; Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV07980 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: order to show cause re why defendants answer should not be stricken because it is a corporation not represented by counsel Order to Show Cause re Why Defendant Intercity Fellowship Halls Answer Should Not be Stricken Because it is a Corporation Not Represented by Counsel On March 22, 2024, the motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Intercity Fellowship Hall (Defendant), filed by attorney Zachary McCready, came before the court. The court issued an order on that date (1) noting that Defendant filed, on March 6, 2024, a Substitution of Attorney Civil form, stating that Defendant is substituting in as counsel to represent itself in this action in place of counsel, (2) finding that the motion to be relieved as counsel was therefore moot, and (3) setting an Order to Show Cause re why Defendants answer should not be stricken because it is a corporation not represented by counsel for hearing on June 10, 2024. (Mar. 22, 2024 Order, pp. 1:20-28, 2:5-8.) The court further ordered plaintiff Mary Erickson (Plaintiff) to give notice of that ruling. On June 10, 2024, the court issued an order finding that Plaintiff did not serve a notice of the courts March 22, 2024 ruling on Defendant. (June 10, 2024 Order, p. 2:5-8.) The court therefore exercised its discretion to continue the hearing on the Order to Show Cause to July 15, 2024. (Id. at p. 2:9-13.) The court further ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed no later than nine court days before the hearing. (Id. at p. 2:14-15.) First, the court finds that Plaintiff has given Defendant notice of the pending Order to Show Cause re why Defendants answer should not be stricken as a corporation unrepresented by counsel. (June 10, 2024 Notice of Ruling, p. 7 [proof of service by certified mail to Defendant at 5881 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, California]; March 6, 2024 Substitution of Attorney, MC-050, ¶ 2 [listing Defendants address to be 5881 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, California].) Second, the court finds that Defendant is improperly representing itself in this action. [U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.¿ It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.¿ (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)¿¿ Defendant is a corporation. (Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel, MC-051, ¶ 4, subd. (b) [Defendant is a corporation]; Def. Answer, ¶ 5 [Admitted that INTERCITY FELLOWSHIP HALL, is a California corporation].) Thus, Defendant is required to be represented by counsel in this action. (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) However, on March 6, 2024, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney form (Judicial Council form MC-050), stating that it was substituting in to represent itself in this action in place of attorney Zachary McCready. (Def. March 6, 2024 Sub. of Attorney, MC-050, ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendant has not (1) filed another Substitution of Attorney form stating that it is now represented by counsel, or (2) filed a response to the Order to Show Cause or other evidence with the court establishing that it has since retained counsel. Thus, the court finds that Defendant is improperly representing itself in propria persona and therefore grants its own motion to strike Defendants answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [court may, at any time in its discretion, strike a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state].) The court orders that Defendant Intercity Fellowship Halls Answer to Plaintiff Mary Ericksons Initial Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded, filed by defendant Intercity Fellowship Hall on June 2, 2023, is stricken. The court orders plaintiff Mary Erickson to file a Request for Entry of Default (Judicial Council form CIV-100) as to defendant Intercity Fellowship Hall no later than 10 days from the date of this order. The court orders that trial, set for April 16, 2025, is vacated. The court orders that the final status conference, set for April 4, 2025, is vacated. The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of default and default judgment for hearing on November 4, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53. The court orders plaintiff Mary Erickson to file default judgment documents required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 (including a proposed judgment on JUD-100) no later than September 26, 2024. The court orders plaintiff Mary Erickson to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 15, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

LESLIE HARRIS VS. UCSF-MOFITT LONG

Jul 16, 2024 |CGC23604858

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Line 5. DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS UCSF-MOFFITT-LONG's MOTION TO TAX COSTS. The motion is unopposed, and is granted. Harris is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to costs. The court has reviewed the pro per plaintiff's "Subject: cause of action for motion to vacate in favor of the plaintiff," filed June17, 2024, as well as the "Subject: Request for judicial Notice in support of the plaintiff," filed June 17, and "Subject: Defense expert testimony is void pursuant [to] California Evidence Code 801.1 as of 2024," filed June 21, 2024. These are not oppositions to the pending motion. They may be an attempt to seek a new trial, but they do not conform to the procedures specified for that sort of motion, and the court refers plaintiff to Code of Civil Procedure sections 656-663a. The court specifically refers plaintiff to section 659 which discusses the notice of intention to move for a new trial. There are deadlines for these sorts of motions, and the court expresses no opinion whether a motion for a new trial would be timely filed. The court also notes the defense lodging of an amended judgment reflecting costs in favor of the defense. If (1) the defense memorandum of costs has been filed and served, and (2) the time in which to move to tax or strike it has elapsed, then defense counsel may provide (a) a declaration stating the facts (1) and (2), as well as (b) a proposed amended judgment, all to Judge Karnow in Department 611 for his signature. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

Ruling

KITCHEN, IVANELL ET AL V. WINDSOR CHICO CREEK CARE AND

Jul 17, 2024 |21CV02434

21CV02434 KITCHEN, IVANELL ET AL V. WINDSOR CHICO CREEK CARE ANDREHABILITATION CENTER, LLC ET ALEVENT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents &Special InterrogatoriesAs to the Special Interrogatories, Defendants state that “[o]n June 20, 2024, Defendantserved its Verified Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, set 7.”[See, Defendants’ Opposition at Pg. 2, Lines 3-5.] This is confirmed by Plaintiffs in theReply. [See, Reply at Pg. 1, Lines 25-26.] As such, the Motion as to SpecialInterrogatories, Set 7, is moot is denied on that basis.As to Requests for Production of Documents, a foundational issue is raised by Plaintiffsthat the responses to the Requests for Production, Set 7, are unverified. Plaintiffs arguecorrectly that the failure to provide verified responses is tantamount to no response at all,and Defendant has waived their objections. See, e.g., Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great PacificSecurities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914; Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206Cal.App.3d 632, 636. As such, the Motion is granted on that basis as to the Requests forProduction, Set 7.As to the specific Requests at issue, the Court further finds as follows:Request No. 82: Defendant indicates that it has obtained the requested audit logspursuant to Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 82, “and will produce the audit logs with thesupplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ request for production set 7, shortly.” As such,the Motion is deemed unopposed is granted as to Request No. 82. The Court doesconfirm that the relevant time period for the production of responsive documents forRequest No. 82 is 6 months before and 6 months after the admission of Mrs. Kitchen.2|PageRequest Nos. 85-92: Defendant suggests that it has in its possession documentsresponsive to these requests and objects only on the basis that Plaintiffs have failedto agree to a protective order. This is not a proper objection and absent a motionbefore the Court for such an order, the documents are to be produced. The Motion isgranted as to Request Nos. 85-92.Request Nos. 94-96: Defendant indicates that the parties met and conferred, andfollowing negotiations reached an agreeable search term list and “will run the agreed-upon search, sans “reimburse!”, and product the results of the search with thesupplemental responses to Plaintiff’s request for production set 7, shortly.” As such,the Motion is deemed unopposed is granted as to Request Nos. 94-96.Request No. 98: Defendant indicates that it has obtained the requested Key FactorReports and will produce them “with the supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s requestfor production set 7, shortly.” As such, the Motion is deemed unopposed is granted asto Request No. 98.Request Nos. 99-101: Defendant states that it has performed a diligent search and areasonable inquiry to comply with the request for facility assessments but to date hasnot yet located the requested documents and will continue its diligent search andprovide a further update in its supplemental responses. If there are no documentsresponsive to these Requests, Defendant shall provide Code compliant responses soindicating.Request Nos. 105-107: Defendant states that it has performed a diligent search anda reasonable inquiry to comply with these requests but is unable to comply becausethe document is no longer in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, otherthan the photo of page one of the waiver that was produced to Plaintiff in Defendants’initial response. Pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Defendant believes that the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health has possession, custody, or control of the entire staffingwaiver requested by Plaintiffs. Defendant shall provide Code compliant responses soindicating.Defendant is ordered to provide further verified responses to Request for Production, Set7, including production of all responsive documents without objection, within 20 days’notice of this order. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall submit a form of order consistent withthis ruling within two weeks.

Ruling

REYES vs NSIBUKA, et al.

Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |23CV041625

23CV041625: REYES vs NSIBUKA, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Musa Nsibuka (Defendant) in Department 16Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Somnath Raj ChatterjeeThe motion to compel arbitration is withdrawn.Appearances are unnecessary.

Ruling

SANTIAGO AJANEL, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Jul 18, 2024 |22STCV29612

Case Number: 22STCV29612 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 32 HEARING DATE July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER 22STCV29612 MOTION Motion to Continue Trial MOVING PARTIES Defendant City of Los Angeles OPPOSING PARTY Unopposed MOTION Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to continue trial. No opposition has been filed. BACKGROUND The complaint was filed on September 12, 2022. Trial was initially set for March 11, 2024. Defendants answer was filed on November 15, 2022. On February 8, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to September 17, 2024. On May 29, 2024, Defendant filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment. The hearing for summary judgment is currently scheduled for September 24, 2024. ANALYSIS Legal Standard Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance. (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circ*mstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new partys involvement in the case; (6) A partys excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circ*mstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The courts calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) A party may move for summary judgment at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)¿ Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(2).)¿ The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(3).)¿¿¿ Discussion Defendant requests the Court continue trial in this case to at least 30 days after the September 24, 2024 summary judgment hearing. A party that timely files a motion for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c has a right to have their motion heard before the start of trial. (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) If served electronically, a motion for summary judgment must be made at least 105 days before trial, plus two court days. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) Therefore, a motion for summary judgment in this case needed to be filed by May 31, 2024. Defendant timely served its motion for summary judgment on May 29, 2024. Defendant argues that the summary judgment hearing could not be reserved until September 24, 2024. (Lee Decl. ¶ 2.) Since that date is after trial, Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard. Therefore, since Defendant has filed a timely summary judgment motion, and seeing no opposition, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to continue trial. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS Defendants motion to continue trial. The Final Status Conference is continued to October 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Trial is continued to October 31, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be in accordance with the new trial date. Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.

Ruling

Rocciola VS Asbestos Comnpanies

Jul 18, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Asbestos Property Damage) |RG20061279

RG20061279: Rocciola VS Asbestos Comnpanies 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other NOTICE AND APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING ROBERT R. SIMPSON AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE; filed by Union Carbide Corporation (Defendant) in Department 18Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Patrick McKinneyThe Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Union Carbide Corporation on 06/25/2024 isGranted.Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date ofthis order Pro Hac Vice Applicant Robert Simpson shall pay a renewal fee of five hundreddollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in thiscase. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 09/19/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 18at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar daysbefore the hearing, no appearance will be required.CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERSNotify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduledhearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov2. Case Search3. Enter the Case Number and select Search4. Select the Case Name5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting8. Select Proceed.

Ruling

YAMILET PANDURO VS MAURICE MARIE CARSON

Jul 17, 2024 |23SMCV00072

Case Number: 23SMCV00072 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Panduro v. Carson CASE NO.: 23SMCV00072 MOTION: Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Monetary Sanctions HEARING DATE: 7/17/2024 Legal Standard If a party fails to obey a court order compelling it to provide a discovery response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction . . .. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2030.300(e), 2031.300(c), 2031.320(c).) Misuse of the discovery process, which includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery, is conduct subject to sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(g).) Possible sanctions are: (a) [A] monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct&. (b) [A]n issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (c) [A]n evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. (d) [A] terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. (e) [A] contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a contempt of court. (CCP § 2023.030.) The party seeking to impose sanctions need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. (Puritan Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 884 [interpreting former statute dealing with refusal to comply].) However, numerous cases hold that severe sanctions (i.e., terminating or evidentiary sanctions) for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495; Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) The burden of proof then shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201.) Analysis Defendant Marcie Marie Carson moves for terminating and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Yamilet Panduro for their failure to obey this courts order of November 28, 2023, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $660.00. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions of $1,060.00 against Plaintiff and counsel of record, Hesam Yazdanpanah, for costs and fees associated with having to bring this motion. Defendant does not cite any authority suggesting that a party and/or counsels failure to pay monetary sanctions would justify terminating sanctions absent other violations. The Court is also disinclined to grant sanctions-on-sanctions. Monetary sanctions are enforceable as judgments under the typical procedures available to such orders. (See CCP §680 et seq. [enforcement of money judgments].) Accordingly, Defendants motion is DENIED.

Ruling

CLAREMONT STARS SOCCER CLUB VS BRIAN WIESNER, ET AL.

Jul 17, 2024 |23PSCV01913

Case Number: 23PSCV01913 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: K 1. See below. 2. Plaintiff Claremont Stars Soccer Clubs Motion to Compel Defendant Carlos Morrell to Provide a Supplemental Response to Request Nos. 3, 16, 24-26, and 28 of the Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Morrell is ordered to provide further, Code-compliant responses within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded against Morell in the reduced amount of $1,460.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. 3. Defendant Brian Wiesners Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal for In Camera Review is DENIED. Background Plaintiff Claremont Stars Soccer Club (Club) alleges as follows: Club is a non-profit organization governed by a Board of Directors (Board). Brian Wiesner (Wiesner) and Carlos Morrell (Morell) formerly served as President and Treasurer, respectively, of the Club. Starting in approximately March 2022, Wiesner and Morrell decided to increase Club fees charged for each participant without providing any justification. On February 22, 2023, the Board elected to remove Weisner as Club President. Five of the Board members responsible for Weisners removal and notification of removal, were subsequently notified by an attorney, who had been hired by Wiesner and Morrell with Club funds, that they were expelled from the Club. On March 8, 2023, the Board held its meeting, voted to confirm their removal of Weisner and Morrell as President and Treasurer, respectively, and elected a new set of officers. Wiesner and Morrell opened a new Team Snap account to directly compete with the Clubs Team Snap account and create confusion among the parents as to who was actually running the Club. Wiesner and Morrell have refused to recognize the newly elected officers of the Club and have falsely represented to the community and parents that they are still officers of the Club. The Board has since found evidence that Wiesner and Morrell have stolen Club funds of over $250,000.00. On June 27, 2023, Club filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Wiesner, Morrell and Does 1-10 for: 1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 2. Conversion 3. Unjust Enrichment A Case Management Conference is set for September 4, 2024. 1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Request for Production of Documents (i.e., as to Wiesner) Legal Standard [T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[,] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or that] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The moving party must demonstrate a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Notice of the motion must be provided within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . . (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (c).) [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Discussion Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Wiesner to provide further supplemental responses, without objections, and responsive documents to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 25 and 26). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Wiesner in the amount of $3,970.00. Plaintiffs counsel Greg K. Hafif (Hafif) represents as follows: On September 20, 2023, the subject discovery was served. (Hafif Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On November 6, 2023, Wiesner served responses. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) On December 7, 2023, Hafif asked Weisners counsel Chris Hellmich (Hellmich), for a 4-week extension to file any needed motion to compel furthers, to which Hellmich agreed. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. C.) On January 9, 2024, counsel agreed to another extension of the motion deadline, through January 31, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. D.) On January 29, 2024, counsel agreed to a third extension of the motion deadline, until the end of February 2024. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. E). The court required that an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) be held before the instant motion could be filed. (Id., ¶ 13). On March 4, 2024, Morell provided supplemental responses to Requests Nos. 25 and 26, which did not cure the deficiencies noted in the original responses. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. F) The IDC was held on March 25, 2023, but did not resolve the issues. (Id., ¶ 16). Request No. 25 asks for all emails and text messages between Wiesner and Morrell from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023. Request No. 26 asks for all emails and texts between Wiesner and Jeff George (George). Wiesner initially objected to No. 25 on the basis of work product, burden, privacy, relevancy and overbreadth and to No. 26 on the basis of attorney-client communication, work product, burden, equally available, privacy and relevance. Both responses stated, [d]iscovery is continuing and Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend her response to this request at any time. Wiesners response to No. 26 further stated that Mr. George is the former attorney for the Club and, as such, all such documents are already within the Clubs possession. Wiesners supplemental response to No. 25 advised that he lacked the ability to comply with the request for emails because he no longer had access to the Club email account he would have used for official Club business. Wiesner advised, with respect to the request for texts, that he would make his personal cell phone available for inspection and copying of relevant text messages to Plaintiffs counsel at Plaintiffs counsels office pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220. Wiesners supplemental response to No. 26 advised that he lacked the ability to comply with the request because he no longer had access to the Club email account he would have used for official Club business. Wiesner also advised that Plaintiff had the ability to recover any responsive emails from George, inasmuch as George was counsel to Plaintiff. Hellmich, in his declaration accompanying Wiesners opposition, represents that Wiesner has since provided second supplemental responses. (Hellmich Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 3.) Hellmich further represents that he and Wiesner have reviewed the texts contained in Weisners personal cell phone and identified approximately 700 text messages, which have since been exported to an Excel spreadsheet, that they are nearly all irrelevant because they are personal messages unrelated to the subject of the litigation, that the vast majority of the messages pertain to Defendants new soccer team and the minor girls on it and, as such, are irrelevant and implicate third party privacy rights, that 8 messages pertain to this lawsuit but are protected by the Defendants common interest agreement and that Wiesner has reserved a June 11, 2024 hearing regarding a motion for leave to file text messages under seal and to request an in camera review. (Id., ¶¶ 8-11). With respect to the issue of emails, Wiesner contends that any responsive communications would be contained in a Club account that he can no longer access and that Plaintiff has access to same. (Opp., 7:12-15).[1] The motion is granted as to Nos. 25 and 26 (i.e., as to the request for emails), to the extent that the court orders Wiesner to provide a further response furnishing his username and password for the Club email account Wiesner used for official Club business. Wiesner is also ordered to provide a further response clarifying his statement made in his second supplemental response as to text messages (i.e., that Subject to and without waiving Defendants prior objections, after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this Request, the Defendant lacks the ability to comply with the request because to the extent any responsive documents existed and were in the Defendants possession, he is no longer in the possession, custody or control of the items as he does not have possession, custody or control over any text messages with Mr. George. Indeed, Mr. Georges contact information does not even appear in the Defendants IPhone Contact list), Wiesner must provide a response compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 (i.e., specifying the reason for the inability to comply). The motion is otherwise granted as to No. 25 (i.e., as to the request for text messages); however, the court believes that Wiesners objections regarding relevancy and overbreadth are well-taken and limit any further response and production to documents regarding Morrells and Wiesners communications regarding Club activities or business. The court determines that any third-party privacy concerns may be addressed via redaction. The court notes that Wiesner did, in fact, assert a work product objection in his initial response to No. 25; however, it is unclear to the court how communications between two co-defendants would implicate the attorney work product doctrine, defined as [a] writing that reflects an attorneys impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030.). Although Wiesner claims that the aforesaid texts are protected by a common interest doctrine, a party seeking to rely on the common interest doctrine does not satisfy its burden to justify a claim of privilege simply by demonstrating that a confidential communication took place between parties who purportedly share a common interest. Rather, the party seeking to invoke the doctrine must first establish that the communicated information would otherwise be protected from disclosure by a claim of privilege. (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 890.) [T]he common interest doctrine cannot be invoked unless there is an underlying claim of privilege. (Id. at 893). Wiesner has not satisfied his burden. Wiesner is ordered to provide further, Code-compliant responses, subject to the above limitations, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions Again, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Weisner in the amount of $3,970.00 [calculated as follows: 0.5 hours reviewing motion, plus 0.5 hours reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $425.00/hour, plus 5.2 hours preparing motion and 2 hours reviewing opposition and preparing reply at $425.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee]. Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circ*mstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorneys fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,110.00 (i.e., 3 hours at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. 2. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Request for Production of Documents (i.e., as to Morrell) Legal Standard See Motion #1. Discussion Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Morrell to provide further supplemental responses, without objections, and responsive documents to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 3, 16, 24-26 and 28). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Morrell in the amount of $3,842.50. Hafif represents as follows: On September 20, 2023, the subject discovery was served. (Hafif Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On February 2, 2024, Morrell provided responses. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Hafif met and conferred with Morrells counsel Scott Doonan (Doonan), but Doonan did not agree to provide any further responses or to produce responsive documents. (Id., ¶ 23). The court required that an IDC be held before the instant motion could be filed. (Id., ¶ 25). The IDC was held on March 25, 2023, but did not resolve the issues. (Id., ¶ 26). Request No. 3 asks for all documents that show who Desiree Ashcrft (Ashcrft) is and why she received certain payments on 10/01/2021, 10/04/2021, 11/01/2021 and 11/03/2021. Morrells response to Request No. 3 was that, after a reasonable and diligent search, he was unable to comply with this request in whole, that he was not in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this request and believed Plaintiff was in possession, custody and/or control of responsive documents, that all entries to Ashcrft were for payments for the purchase of field lights and that Morrell believed that Ashcrft was previously contacted by a member of Plaintiff after the current administration of Plaintiff took over. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to Request No. 3. Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 requires that a representation of inability to comply with a demand also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. Morrells inclusion of the phrase in whole is not problematic to the court for this instant response, since he provided substantive information identifying Ashcrft. Request No. 16 asks for all documents that show why Elite Group Investments, LLC (Elite Group) received certain identified payments between 09/01/2020 and 12/29/2022. Request No. 24 asks for all bank statements for Elite Group from January 1, 2020 to the present. Request No. 25 asks for all emails and text messages between Wiesner and Morrell from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023. Request No. 26 asks for all emails and texts between Morrell and George. Request No. 28 asks for any documents that show the username, password and any other login credentials for the Club Quickbooks account. Morrells response to Requests Nos. 16, 24-26 and 28 was that, after a reasonable and diligent search, he was unable to comply with this request in whole, that he was not in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this request and believed Plaintiff was in possession, custody and/or control of responsive documents. Again, Plaintiff is entitled to further responses to Requests Nos. 16, 24-26 and 28, for the same reasons identified as to Request No. 3. Additionally, Morrells inclusion of the phrase in whole suggests that Morrell is at least able to comply in part with the request. The motion, then, is granted. Morrell is ordered to provide further, Code-compliant responses within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions Morrells request for sanctions is summarily denied. Again, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Morrell in the amount of $3,842.50 [calculated as follows: 4.4 hours preparing motion, plus 2 hours reviewing opposition and preparing reply at $425/hour, plus 1 hour preparing part of separate statement and reviewing motion, plus 0.5 hours reviewing opposition and 1 hour attending hearing at $425/hour, plus $60 filing fee]. Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circ*mstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorneys fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,460.00 (i.e., 4 hours at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. 3. Motion to File Documents Under Seal Legal Standard California Rules of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(1).) These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) Discussion Wiesner moves the court for leave to file an Excel spreadsheet containing approximately 700 text communications between Morell and Wiesner (the Texts) under seal and for an in camera review. Evidentiary Objections The court rules on Plaintiffs objections to the Hellmich declaration as follows: Overruled.[2] Merits California Rules of Cout rules 2.550 and 2.551 are not applicable in the context of a discovery dispute. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) Wiesners motion is summarily denied on this basis. [1] Plaintiff, in turn, asserts that it does not have Weisners username and password for Weisners Club account. (Reply, 3:16-18). [2] Hellmich has attested, in his declaration supporting Wiesners opposition to Motion #1, that he and Wiesner reviewed the voluminous number of texts contained in Wiesners personal cell phone and identified approximately 700 text messages. (Hellmich Decl., ¶ 8). Hellmans supporting declaration states that he has personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein.

Document

Cheryl Mastin, Eugene Mastin v. St. James Hospital, The University Of Rochester, Women'S Health Of Western New York, P.C., Tahir Chauhdry D.O.