Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV19643, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19643    Hearing Date: January 10, 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

            Plaintiffs Micah Sanford and Jamie Cookes (Plaintiffs) move to deem matters in Requests for Admissions, Set Two, admitted against Defendants Norma L. Gonzalez and Dany Steve Gonzalez (Defendants). Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30^th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard before the 15^th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 2024.020 (a).) 

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050 (a).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Id.)

The Court has discretion to grant a motion under section 2024.050 but must take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested including but not limited to: “(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. § 2024.050 (b).)

A trial court abuses its discretion in hearing a discovery motion past the deadlines in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 when it does not require the party to file a motion for leave to reopen discovery under section 2024.050. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.)

DISCUSSION

            On November 30, 2023 the Court continued the trial in this case from December 14, 2023 to January 16, 2024. The minute order states: “All discovery/motion cut-off is closed. The pre-trial motion cut off shall remain in effect.” (Min. Order, 11/30/23.) This motion is set to be heard six days before trial, and thus is untimely as a discovery motion. Therefore, the Court only has discretion to rule on this motion if Plaintiffs file a motion for leave to reopen discovery under section 2024.050. Since Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to reopen discovery, the Court cannot rule on the motion to deem admitted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to deem matters admitted is DENIED.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.