Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV48363, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48363    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Maria Moreno Buenrostro’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2020, Plaintiffs Anabel Garcia Garces (“Anabel”) and Eva Claudia Garcia Garces (“Eva”) filed this action against Defendants Maria Moreno Buenrostro (“Buenrostro”), Angel Moreno (“Moreno”) and Oscar J. Cortes (“Cortes”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On February 10, 2021, the clerk entered default against Defendants. On March 4, 2022, the Court vacated default against Buenrostro.

On March 7, 2022, Buenrostro filed an answer.

On February 28, 2023, Buenrostro filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery to be heard on March 21, 2023. On March 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 19, 2023

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Buenrostro request the Court re-open discovery to allow Buenrostro to take Plaintiff’s deposition and the deposition of another witness. Buenrostro also requests a brief continuance to allow for completion of discovery.

Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2024.050 provides: “(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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) 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.”

DISCUSSION

Buenrostro requests that the Court re-open discovery on the basis that Plaintiff’s deposition and another necessary deposition both were not taken due to the mass exodus of attorneys from Buenrostro’s counsel’s firm. According to counsel, this left counsel without the capability of conducting this discovery. Counsel did not provide a name for the other deposition.

The Court does not find good cause; counsel has not provided when this ‘exodus’ occurred. If it was months ago, Buenrostro’s counsel had adequate notice to file a non-ex-parte request for a continuance or coordinate with Plaintiff’s counsel. If it was recently, the Court wonders why Buenrostro waited until only a month prior to the then current trial date of February 24, 2023, to attempt to conduct vital discovery. There is no explanation given within the moving papers. Counsel submitted a declaration that the Court believes details facts of a different case, as the alleged ‘exhibits’ are unattached and there is no mention of this argument in the moving papers. Even “Exhibit A,” is unattached. There is no showing of good cause. Therefore, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Maria Moreno Buenrostro’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.