Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV25690, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25690    Hearing Date: July 12, 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 August 9, 2022, Plaintiff Anabella Alexandra Pleitez Navas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Richard Aronoff, Pamela Aronoff, and Does 1 to 50 for negligence resulting from a motor vehicle accident. Defendants Richard Aronoff and Pamela Aronoff (“Defendants”) filed an answer on October 17, 2022. Trial was initially set for February 6, 2024.

            On January 4, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related deadlines to May 7, 2024.

            On April 26, 2024, the Court granted in part, the ex parte application filed by Plaintiff to continue trial and reopen expert discovery. Pursuant to oral stipulation, trial was continued to August 1, 2024. The Court denied the request to reopen discovery, requiring a noticed motion instead. (Min. Order, 4/26/24.)

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen expert discovery to complete expert depositions. 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 Theodore J. Feldsher, Plaintiff’s counsel, does not describe a meet and confer effort to reopen expert discovery.

DISCUSSION

Here, the expert designation date was set for March 18, 2024. However, the parties agreed to hold off disclosing experts to focus on a mediation that was scheduled on March 28, 2024. (Feldsher Decl. ¶ 3–4.) The mediation was unsuccessful and on March 29, 2024, the parties designated experts, thereby decreasing the expert discovery period since trial was set for May 7, 2024 at the time. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel ignored Plaintiff’s efforts to schedule experts’ deposition and never provided dates. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. B, C.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to timely notice depositions and that Plaintiff failed to produce its own expert for deposition. However, Defendants do not dispute that they failed to provide available deposition dates for their experts.

Therefore, given the already-limited period of expert discovery, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted reasonably to seek available dates before noticing unilaterally set depositions. The need for the discovery also appears high since neither party has conducted expert depositions. Additionally, it appears that expert depositions could be completed before the trial date of August 1, 2024. Therefore, the motion to reopen expert discovery is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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