Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV16679, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16679    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

 Date:               8/23/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Glendale Investors Lt. v. Lindenhurst Investors Group (20STCV16679)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Glendale Investors Limited, LLC’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Kourosh Darougar is DENIED. 

Plaintiff Glendale Investors Limited, LLC moves to compel the deposition of defendant Kourosh Darougar. This motion is being heard past the discovery cut-off date.

Trial was initially set for August 1, 2022. (11/5/21 Minute Order.) Under CCP § 2024.020(a), discovery closes 30 days before the day initially set for trial, and the time to have discovery motions heard closes 15 days before the day initially set for trial. Accordingly, the cut-off date for discovery was July 5, 2022, and the cut-off date for discovery motions was July 18, 2022. (CCP §12a [deadlines falling on Saturday, Sunday, and court holidays moved to next court day].)

On July 14, 2022, the Court heard plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance hearing and continue trial. In the ex parte application, plaintiff asked the Court to either advance the hearing on the motion to compel deposition or continue the trial to hear the motion and conduct defendant’s deposition. (7/13/22 Ex Parte Application at 1:25-2:3.) The Court granted the ex parte application in part and vacated the trial. While the trial date was vacated with a date to be set during the Trial Setting Conference, “a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings,” unless the Court grants a motion to reopen discovery under CCP § 2024.050. (CCP § 2024.020(b).) No such motion to reopen discovery has been granted.

Plaintiff argues that defendant untimely objected to its discovery notice. (Kay Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7 & Exs. D, E.) Plaintiff also argues that cross-defendant The Point at Beverly Hills, Inc. (“The Point”) reset defendant’s deposition for July 7, 2022 “per agreement of the parties.” (Kay Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C.)

Regardless of the timeliness of the objection, there is nothing in the record indicating plaintiff and defendants had any agreement that Darougar’s deposition could proceed after the discovery cutoff date or that any motion to compel that deposition could be heard past the motion cutoff date.  “Parties to an action may, with the consent of any party affected by it, enter into an agreement to extend the time for the completion of discovery proceedings or for the hearing of motions concerning discovery, or to reopen discovery after a new date for trial of the action has been set. This agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date.” (CCP § 2024.060.) Here, there is no writing evidencing any such agreement between plaintiff and defendants.  Rather, before this Court is only the deposition notice served on defendant by cross-defendant The Point, which references an “agreement of the parties.”  In context, that notice can only be read to refer to an agreement between cross-defendant and defendants to take the deposition of Darougar on July 7, 2022; it is insufficient to establish that plaintiff and defendants had ever reached an agreement to extend the discovery cutoff for any purpose or to allow any discovery motions past the cutoff date to be heard by this Court.

The motion is DENIED.