Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV27203, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27203    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Alejandro Villalvazo and Donna Moreno’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings

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

BACKGROUND

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Birge Manoukian (“Manoukian”) and Can Atilmis (“Atilmis”) filed this action against Defendants Alejandro Villalvazo (“Villalvazo”) and Donna Moreno (“Moreno”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On October 21, 2021, Defendants filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Manoukian for indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.

On February 3, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery to be heard on February 28, 2023. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court re-open discovery to allow Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition.

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

Defendants request the Court re-open discovery to allow Defendants to take Plaintiffs’ deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel allegedly refused to present Plaintiffs for a deposition until after Defendants’ depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel noticed Defendants’ depositions for December 19, 2022, just three days prior to the discovery deadline. Upon receiving notice of the deposition, Defendants requested Plaintiffs’ availability, which Plaintiffs’ counsel never provided.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants never took affirmative steps to take Plaintiffs depositions by setting a deposition date. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are attempting to gain a trial continuance by seeking to re-open discovery.

The Court grants the motion, re-opening discovery to allow Defendants to take Plaintiffs’ depositions. Although Defendants did not file a notice of depositions, Defendants attempted to take Plaintiffs’ depositions by requesting dates, which Plaintiffs never provided. By failing to provide date for Plaintiffs’ deposition and demanding Defendants provide their availability first, Plaintiffs unduly interfered with Defendants right to timely discovery.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Alejandro Villalvazo and Donna Moreno’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery Proceedings is GRANTED, limited to the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions and any discovery stemming from said depositions.

            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.