Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV48363, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48363    Hearing Date: May 15, 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. The Court continued the motion to May 15, 2023. On April 6, 2023, Buenrostro filed supplemental papers. On April 28, 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

The Court ordered parties to submit additional documents in support or opposition of the motion.

Buenrostro submitted a declaration stating that this case was assigned to Buenrostro’s original attorney on June 15, 2022. From the period of January 1, 2023, to April 6, 2023, 8 of counsel’s 14 lawyers departed the firm. The original overseeing attorney departed on March 10, 2023. The original attorney did not take the deposition of Plaintiff or an independent witness prior to leaving the firm, despite the fact there was a noticed deposition of the independent witness for January 2, 2023. There is no explanation offered as to why counsel failed to take this deposition, which was scheduled for when he was employed by the firm; Plaintiff’s opposition notes that previous counsel actually did take this deposition—this is reflected in the deposition record. (Ex A). There is also no explanation as to why Plaintiff’s deposition was never taken. Buenrostro filed an answer in this case in March of 2022; previous counsel was assigned the case in June of 2022. Buenrostro has provided no explanation as to why Buenrostro waited to conduct discovery until only a month prior to the then current trial date of February 24, 2023, especially

as counsel did not leave the firm until after that date. Buenrostro failed to diligently pursue discovery and has offered no reasonable excuse as to why they failed to do so. The Court does not find good cause and 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.