Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV26314, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 20STCV26314    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants City of Los Angeles and Christopher Lynn Gipson’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings

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

BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Julian A. Martinez, Jr. (“Martinez”) and Juan Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Christopher Lynn Gipson (“Gipson”), Fella Boumat (“Fella”) and Philip N. Boumat (“Philip”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 10, 2020, the City filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Fella and Philip for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On December 3, 2020, Fella and Philip filed an answer.

On December 3, 2020, Fella and Philip filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant City for apportionment of fault and partial indemnity. On February 19, 2021, the City filed an answer.

On February 19, 2021, Gipson filed an answer. On August 3, 2022, the Court dismissed Martinez’s causes of action against Fella and Philip, without prejudice. On August 19, 2022, the Court dismissed Gonzalez’s causes of action against the City and Gipson, with prejudice.

On September 22, 2022, the City and Gibson (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery to be heard on November 21, 2022. On October 6 and again on November 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for January 20, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court extend the discovery date to be consistent with the new trial date.

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 recently granted the motion to continue trial to January 20, 2023.

Moving Defendants request the Court re-open discovery as trial counsel was unavailable due to a tragedy and subsequent medical issue, there were no other available trial attorneys at the time available to handle the case, and newly hired counsel has recognized additional discovery needs to be conducted.

Moving Defendants’ previous counsel missed approximately one month of work in 2021, after a family injury. He subsequently was absent an additional 3 weeks in 2022 due to related injuries. He then performed limited work for his entire caseload, resulting in discovery falling behind. Around the same time, one of Moving Defendants’ attorneys passed away, and four other trial attorneys left the unit, resulting in six out of eighteen trial attorneys now being unavailable. Due to the lack of staff, counsel was unable to review the files of attorneys who left or were on medical leave, meaning Moving Defendants were not fully aware how far behind counsel was on discovery. New counsel took over in August and is now attempting to finish discovery.

Plaintiffs argue that discovery has been closed since May 16, 2022, and that the Court denied the virtually identical motion filed in May. Moving Defendants failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration and jurisdiction is now lost. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have dismissed defendants based upon Moving Defendants’ non-designation of expert witnesses.

The Court finds that there is good cause to re-open discovery.  Defendant’s moving and reply papers present a series of misfortunes which, understandably, could cause the situation in which Defendant finds itself.  As Defendant points out, among the purposes of the discovery process is that litigants have an efficient means of getting at the truth, and a chance to educate themselves before trial as to the relative strengths of their claims and defenses. (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294-1295.)  Litigation is a human endeavor, subject to human experiences.  Public policy dictates that the interest of full and just resolution of cases outweighs that of judicial efficiency. (Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 398-399.)  The Court anticipates that if the situation were reversed, Plaintiff would want the same relief. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants City of Los Angeles and Christopher Lynn Gipson’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings is GRANTED.   Discovery and law and motion cut-offs in this matter will track the January 20, 2022 trial date.

            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.