Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV48169, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48169    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    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 party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s 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

BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2020, Plaintiffs Joseph Azzam, Daysi Mejia, and Jolie Moreno, by and through her Guardian ad litem, Joseph Azzam, filed an action against Defendants, Jorge Rene Salguero, and Colich & Sons, LP., for negligence.  Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Jorge Rene Salguero and Defendant Colich & Sons, L.P.’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)  In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“[A] party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard. But the fact that a party does not have a right to have a discovery motion heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not mean the court has no power to hear it, or that the court errs in hearing it. Indeed, subdivision (a) of section 2024.050 specifically allows a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date by providing that ‘the court may grant leave ... to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.’ But that statute also specifies that such leave may be granted ‘[o]n motion of any party.’ [Citation.] Moreover, such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and in exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion the court must consider various factors. …” (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 (alterations in original).) In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, the court held that the trial court’s discretion to hear a discovery motion was limited by the court first hearing and granting a motion for leave to reopen discovery. (Id. at 1588.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue this motion is untimely because the discovery motion cutoff date has passed. The Court agrees.  In its June 6, 2023 Minute Order, the Court continued the trial date to October 12, 2023 but specified: “All Discovery and Pre-trial Motion cut-off dates shall be associated with the current trial date of June 21, 2023, subject to further orders of this Court.”

Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to reopen discovery, nor have they addressed the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050. Accordingly, the Court does not have the discretion to hear the motion to compel.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Motion to Compel Depositions is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service.