Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18610, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18610    Hearing Date: May 8, 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 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 June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Azad Sipilian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Margo Elizabeth Stilley (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 30 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident. Trial was originally set for December 5, 2023.

            Defendant’s answer was filed on July 29, 2022.

            On October 26, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to April 25, 2024.

            On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to reopen discovery and continue trial.

            On April 11, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application advancing the hearings on the instant motions. On the Court’s own motion, the final status conference and trial set for April 25, 2024 was advanced to that date and vacated. The Court then scheduled a trial setting conference for May 8, 2024. All discovery remains closed, and the pre-trial motion cut off remains in effect pending further Court order. (Min. Order, 4/11/24.)

            Defendant opposes the motion to reopen discovery 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

According to the Declaration of Kaelan T. Nielsen, “[p]rior to filing this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defense counsel via email to request a continuance of the trial date to extend discovery given the ongoing discovery disputes and pending motions to compel further responses. Defense counsel indicated that she would not be stipulating anything.” (Nielsen Decl. ¶ 14.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened in this case once a new trial date is set. Plaintiff argues that substantial discovery still needs to be completed. On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant. (Nielsen Decl. ¶ 2.) On October 16, 2023, Defendant provided responses. The parties then met and conferred to resolve issues around the deficiency of the responses, and repeatedly extended the deadline to file motions to compel further. (Nielsen Decl. ¶ 5.)

On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff scheduled an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). An IDC was held on February 20, 2024 and the issues were resolved. (Min. Order, 2/20/24.) On March 6, 2024, Defendant provided supplemental responses that Plaintiff believed to be deficient. Defendant asserted that she would provide no further responses without a Court order. Plaintiff then scheduled an IDC for the earliest available date: April 9, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Defendant did not agree to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further or for a trial continuance. (Nielsen Decl. ¶ 11.) On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial past the IDC and motions to compel further was denied. The Court noted that no discovery motions had been filed yet. (Min. Order, 3/14/24.)

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed four motions to compel further responses to discovery. On March 25, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second ex parte application to continue trial, noting that no motion to reopen discovery was filed. On April 9, 2024, the IDC was called to hearing but not held because discovery was closed.

On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff also filed the instant motions to reopen discovery and continue trial.  On April 11, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application advancing the instant motion and continuing the motions to compel further responses to May 25, 2024. The trial date was vacated.

Plaintiff argues discovery should be reopened because he has worked to resolve the discovery disputes without court intervention and the discovery is necessary to present his case at trial. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not cooperated during the discovery process by refusing to produce certain documents and by not providing complete answers. Plaintiff contends he did not seek court intervention sooner because the parties were attempting to settle the case. (Motion, 4.) Plaintiff also asserts Defendant will not be prejudiced by reopening discovery since she would also benefit from additional evidence.

In opposition, Defendant contends the parties have completed written discovery, depositions, and exchanged expert information. (Margaryan Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendants argue Plaintiff has not been diligent in pursuing discovery in this case. Defendant also argues that the discovery Plaintiff seeks is irrelevant to this action and at the February 20, 2024 IDC, the Court instructed Plaintiff to schedule a second IDC and provide case law to support his position—which he did not complete. (Id. ¶ 11–13.)

In reply, Plaintiff asserts the discovery is relevant to Defendant’s affirmative defense that Plaintiff is responsible for any delay in the repair of his vehicle. In response to this, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s insurer, acting on behalf of Defendant, unreasonably refused to pay for the repairs and led to a further deprivation of his vehicle. (Reply, 2.)

Based on the information above, it appears Plaintiff acted diligently to obtain the discovery at issue, by meeting and conferring with Defendant and scheduling IDCs. Plaintiffs contend the motions are necessary for proving damages at trial. However, given the number of issues in the various motions, the motions would benefit from an IDC. The parties are ordered to file an IDC statement that succinctly summarizes the categories of issues in dispute and sets forth the legal authority for their positions.

Though Defendant unsuccessfully opposed this motion, the Court declines to award sanctions, finding she acted with substantial justification.

Because trial in this case was vacated on April 11, 2024, the motion to continue trial is denied as moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of hearing the discovery motions currently scheduled for May 24, 2024.

The motions are scheduled for an IDC on June 12, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

To the extent the issues remain unresolved, the hearings on the motions to compel further are continued to June 25, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Any oppositions must be filed by June 14, 2024 and any reply briefs must be filed by June 18.

A trial setting conference is set for June 25, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. In the alternative, the parties may stipulate to a new trial and Final Status Conference date and submit a joint stipulation and proposed order for the Court’s consideration.

Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is DENIED as moot.

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