Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 22STCV13174, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV13174, Date: 2024-12-11 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: 22STCV13174 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: 52

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe’s Motion for an Order Reopening Discovery

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe moves to reopen discovery to permit the depositions of four witnesses: Cassandra Roy, Aadil Naazir, Marilyn Fuller, and Peter Misseijer. On November 6, 2024, defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) submitted declarations by these witnesses in support of its motion for summary judgment. The fact discovery cutoff had passed on October 31.

Plaintiff shows good cause to reopen discovery for these four depositions. 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.

Plaintiff shows substantial necessity and a good reason to depose these witnesses. LAUSD submitted declarations from these witnesses in support of its motion for summary judgment. The statute on summary judgment motions contemplates that additional discovery may be required to oppose such a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h) [“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just”].) Plaintiff presents a reasonable basis to believe that deposing these witnesses may result in eliciting testimony essential to justify her opposition to LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff shows adequate diligence. LAUSD presents evidence plaintiff knew about these witnesses months ago or longer. For example, at a deposition in October 2023, LAUSD employee Grace Arnold testified that Peter Misseijer was the person who “would most closely interact with a proposed charter school.” (Miller Decl., Ex. 1, Arnold Depo., 19:25-20:3.) Plaintiff could have acted sooner in seeking to depose these four witnesses. But, while she knew something about these witnesses earlier, they became far more important once LAUSD used their testimony to support its motion for summary judgment. After LAUSD filed its motion, plaintiff promptly sought to reopen discovery to depose the witnesses.

It is not likely that permitting these four depositions will prevent the case from going to trial as scheduled on March 12, 2025. Plaintiff must depose these witnesses in time to present their testimony in opposition to LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment, which is set for February 5, 2025.

Finally, the current trial date is over a year after the initial trial date of October 18, 2023. Despite the length of time, the circumstances of the case justified the delay. Based on facts discovered during litigation, the parties stipulated to permit plaintiff to file a first amended complaint in October 2024.

After considering all relevant factors, the court finds good cause to reopen discovery to permit plaintiff to depose the four witnesses specified in her motion. Plaintiff seeks limited discovery adequately tailored to her efforts to oppose LAUSD’s pending motion for summary judgment. Reopening discovery serves the interest of justice.

Disposition

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe’s motion to reopen discovery is granted. The court hereby reopens discovery solely to permit plaintiff to depose the following four witnesses: Cassandra Roy, Aadil Naazir, Marilyn Fuller, and Peter Misseijer. No later than December 18, 2024, plaintiff and LAUSD shall meet and confer to schedule the depositions.