Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV29243, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29243    Hearing Date: December 15, 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 August 9, 2021, Plaintiff Jennifer Gomez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Parking Company of America Management, LLC, Maria Olortegui, and Does 1 to 25 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident. Defendants Parking Company of America Management, LLC and Maria Olortegui (Defendants) filed their answers on October 28, 2021 and November 2, 2021, respectively. Trial was initially set for February 6, 2023.

            On January 31, 2023, Defendants’ ex parte application continuing trial, and all discovery cut-off dates, to June 12, 2023, was granted. (Min. Order, 1/31/23.)

On May 2, 2023, the Court signed a stipulation and order continuing the trial and all discovery cut-off dates to August 9, 2023.

On July 24, 2023, the Court signed a second stipulation to continue trial to March 27, 2024. The Order states: “All fact discovery is now closed; All expert deadlines, including the deadline for designating expert witnesses, shall be calculated from the new trial date. No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause.”

Plaintiff now moves to reopen discovery regarding Plaintiff’s ongoing medical treatment. Plaintiff filed this motion on September 21, 2023. Defendants oppose and Plaintiff replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

“On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or 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.¿ This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿ 

¿¿ 

“In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿ (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.¿ (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.¿ (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)¿¿¿ 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (c).)¿¿¿ 

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Jennifer Burkes states she sent an email and follow-up regarding whether Defendants would accept Plaintiff’s additional medical records in lieu of filing this motion. (Burkes Decl. ¶ 3–4.) Therefore, it appears Plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter in good faith.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges injuries from the subject motor vehicle accident. On September 7, 2023, after discovery closed, Plaintiff was examined by Pranay Patel, M.D. who recommended additional treatment such as MRI scans, and stated that Plaintiff would be a good candidate for a C6-7 cervical spine surgery. (Motion, 4.) On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff notified Defendants of the surgery recommendation and offered to provide the relevant records and allow Plaintiff’s follow-up deposition. Defendants declined.

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff only seeks to reopen discovery in order to present the new information to the jury. Defendants argue they will be prejudiced since Plaintiff’s deposition took place in June 2022 and her defense medical examination was completed on February 16, 2023. (Opp., 2–3.)

This motion was filed on September 21, 2023. Plaintiff appears to have been diligent in bringing this motion because it was filed shortly after the September 7 examination. The motion seeks to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of Plaintiff’s ongoing medical treatment from September 2023 to the present. Plaintiff also has agreed to sit for another deposition and provide records. The subject of the limited discovery – relating to Plaintiff’s claim for damages – is at issue in this case.

Although Defendants argue that the case will need to be continued, the trial is not until March 27, 2024. It appears that Plaintiff will be available for deposition promptly, and has agreed to produce all records. To the extent that additional records are necessary pursuant to subpoena, Defendants have not established that significant time is needed to obtain those records. In addition, to the extent that a further limited defense medical examination is necessary and warranted, Defendants have not established why this cannot be completed by the current trial date.

Accordingly, the motion to reopen discovery for a limited purpose is granted. The Court finds that imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff Jennifer Gomez’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED. The parties should meet and confer promptly to ensure that all discovery can be completed by the current trial date.  

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.