Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV09282, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 20STCV09282 Hearing Date: October 19, 2023 Dept: 52
Cross-Defendant
Aram Sharnazyan’s Motion to Reopen Discovery and Continue Trial
Cross-defendant Aram Sharnazyan moves to reopen
discovery and continue the trial.
Reopening discovery may be unnecessary. The court has continued the trial several
times. Each time, the discovery
deadlines were continued to follow the trial date either pursuant to the
court’s order, the parties’ stipulation, or under Code of Civil Procedure
section 599. As a result, the current
discovery cutoff is October 30, 2023, 30 days before the trial date of November
29. (CCP § 2024.020(a).)
Assuming the discovery deadline has passed,
Sharnazyan shows good cause to reopen discovery. Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050,
subdivision (b) provides:
In exercising its discretion to grant or deny [a motion to reopen
discovery], 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.
After weighing all the relevant matters, the court
finds good cause to partially reopen discovery.
Cross-complainant did not serve Sharnazyan with the summons and
cross-complaint until March 15, 2023. Sharnazyan
first appeared in this action on April 14, 2023. When Sharnazyan propounded discovery in May
2023, cross-complainant Chronicpractor Caregiver, Inc.’s counsel
responded that discovery already closed but offered to stipulate to reopen
discovery. (Nu Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The parties operated as if discovery had
closed but did not ultimately enter a stipulation to reopen it. (Nu Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Exs. 2-3.) Sharnazyan had no fair opportunity to conduct
discovery necessary to prepare for trial.
Sharnazyan diligently sought to conduct the
discovery. He propounded discovery
shortly after appearing in the action.
When cross-complainant’s counsel asserted that discovery already closed,
Sharnazyan met and conferred about reopening discovery. Sharnazyan filed this motion within a
reasonable time after it became clear that the parties would not all stipulate
to reopen discovery,
Reopening discovery will likely prevent the case
from going to trial as scheduled on November 29, 2023. Sharnazyan, however, shows good cause to
continue the trial. Though years have
passed since the initial trial date, Sharnazyan was not served with the
cross-complaint until three years after plaintiff filed this action. When Sharnazyan tried to conduct discovery,
cross-complainant stated it would not respond unless discovery was reopened.
In these
circumstances, Sharnazyan shows good cause to reopen discovery (if necessary)
and to continue the trial.
Disposition
Cross-defendant Aram Sharnazyan’s motion to reopen
discovery and continue trial is granted. The court
hereby reopens discovery. The
court hereby continues the final status conference from November 15, 2023,
to May 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. The court
hereby continues the non-jury trial from November 29, 2023, to May
29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The court hereby
continues all pretrial deadlines to follow the new trial
date.