Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV31467, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31467    Hearing Date: May 15, 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 September 27, 2022, Plaintiff Roberto Espinosa (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint involving a slip and fall at a grocery store. Trial was originally set for March 26, 2024.

            On December 14, 2022, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

            On March 8, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendant’s ex parte application and continued trial to August 6, 2024. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates remain associated with the March 26, 2024 trial date “unless otherwise stipulated by the parties or subject to any motion to reopen discovery.” (Min. Order, 3/8/24.)

            On April 4, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to reopen discovery to run with the current August 6, 2024 trial date. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant 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 Gregory Stone, counsel for Defendant, states the following: “I have met and conferred with plaintiff’s counsel on many occasions to allow us to obtain these requested records. Plaintiff’s counsel refused.” (Stone Decl. ¶ 6.)  

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to reopen discovery as to damages only and to obtain Plaintiff’s mental health records. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff recently underwent a trial cervical spine stimulator procedure and will undergo cervical spine surgery in the coming weeks. Defendant has not obtained the relevant medical records for this treatment. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to disclose that he was treating with Los Angeles County Health Department for 20 years. It argues this is relevant since Plaintiff is alleging significant emotional distress, depression, and anxiety due to the fall. (Motion, 6.) Defendant asserts this fact was “buried within over 1,000 pages of medical records.” (Motion, 7.) However, Defendant does not set forth when these medical records were produced.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant did not diligently conduct discovery. Plaintiff confirms the trial spinal cord stimulator occurred on March 1, 2024, but asserts the records were produced on March 12, 2024. (Opp., 5.) As for the mental health records, Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s argument that he omitted treatment from the Los Angeles County Health Department. (See Opp., 7–8.)  Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that the only person deposed by Defendant was Plaintiff in December 2023. Defendant has never demanded Plaintiff’s independent medical examination. (Marchiondo Decl. ¶ 9.)

First, the Court is unpersuaded that Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s counsel filing this lawsuit almost two years after the incident. Defendant answered the complaint in December 2022, and therefore had over a year to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s medical history and condition.

In reply, Defendant does not respond to Plaintiff’s assertion that he produced the trial spinal cord stimulator records on March 12, 2024. Therefore, there does not appear to be a sufficient need to reopen discovery surrounding that procedure if Defendant already possesses the records. Additionally, since Defendant has litigated this case since December 2022, it fails to set forth a basis to reopen discovery on the general issue of damages.

Turning to the mental health records, Defendant provides Plaintiff’s response to Special Interrogatory number 2, listing the names and addresses of all medical practitioners Plaintiff has consulted in the last ten years before the incident. The Los Angeles County Health Department was not included in the responses. (See Stone Decl. ¶ 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff does not address this point in opposition, or assert that he in fact informed Defendant of this specific treatment. Therefore, because it appears Defendant acted diligently in obtaining records of Plaintiff’s complete medical history and was not affirmatively informed of the Los Angeles County Health Department records, the motion to reopen discovery is granted in part. It appears the discovery may be relevant to Plaintiff’s emotional distress claims and the limited discovery would unlikely prevent the case from going to trial on August 6, 2024.

Though Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed this motion in part, the Court declines to award sanctions, finding he acted with substantial justification.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED in part. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of obtaining discovery surrounding Plaintiff’s mental health records with the Los Angeles County Health Department. The discovery cut-off for this topic shall run with the August 6, 2024 trial date.

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