Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV40660, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40660    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Background

            On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff R.V. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action arising from childhood sexual abuse.  On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”).  The SAC asserts two causes of action for (1) Negligence, and (2) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision.

            On April 19, 2023, the instant action was determined to be a complicated personal injury action and was reassigned to the current department.  (Minute Order 4/19/23.)  At the Case Management Conference on July 10, 2023, the Court (Hon. Elaine Lu presiding) announced that it intends to o keep this matter for trial, and therefore, this Court (Judge Elaine Lu) shall be assigned to this case for all purposes, including trial, which the Court set for August 17, 2023.  (Minute Order 7/10/23.)

            On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases seeking to relate the instant case with A.S. v. Doe 1 et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV13950.  On July 17, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s ex parte application and the parties’ stipulation, the Court continued the trial date from August 17, 2023 to January 2, 2024.  (Minute Order 7/17/23.)  Further, “[b]y stipulation of the parties, discovery cut-off shall follow the new trial date only with respect to discovery that was timely noticed in relation to the current discovery cut-off of July 18, 2023.”  (Minute Order 7/17/23.)

            On July 26, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to have Defendant’s former employee Rodolphe Demordaigle’s personnel file produced subject to a protective order and with sufficient delay such that Demordaigle could object by filing a protective order within a specified time period.

            On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen discovery.  On August 16, 2023, the Court found the case entitled A.S. v. Doe 1 et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV13950 related to the instant action.  (Minute Order 8/16/23.)  On August 23, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to the instant motion.  On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  (CCP § 2024.020(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.”  (CCP § 2024.050(a).)  “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.”  (CCP § 2024.050(b).)

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for the purposes of deposing a key witness and to obtain Defendant’s former employee Rodolphe Demordaigle’s personnel file.

The Instant Motion is Unnecessary for the Personnel File

            The Court’s July 17, 2023 minute order specified that “discovery cut-off shall follow the new trial date only with respect to discovery that was timely noticed in relation to the current discovery cut-off of July 18, 2023.”  (Minute Order 7/17/23.)  As noted in the parties’ stipulation which the Court granted on July 26, 2023, “[Plaintiff] served discovery requests on [Defendant] which seek the production of the Personnel File for former Los Angeles Unified School District employee, Rodolphe Demordaigle (‘Demordaigle’).”  (Stipulation 7/26/23.)  While the stipulation does not specify the date on which Plaintiff served the discovery request on Defendant, as Plaintiff signed the stipulation on December 12, 2022, and Defendant signed the stipulation on July 18, 2023, it is clear that the discovery request seeking Demordaigle’s personnel file was served before the discovery cut-off of July 18, 2023.  Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration in support of the instant motion similarly indicates that Plaintiff served the discovery request seeking Demordaigle’s personnel file well before July 18, 2023.  (Majerus Decl. ¶ 7.)  Moreover, as Defendant concedes, Defendant originally responded to the discovery request seeking Demordaigle’s personnel file on September 9, 2022.  (Uyeshima Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)  Thus, as the discovery request seeking Demordaigle’s personnel file was timely served before the original discovery cut-off of July 18, 2023, pursuant to the order and the parties’ oral stipulation continuing trial, the discovery cut-off for Demordaigle’s personnel file follows the current trial date of January 2, 2024. 

            Moreover, even if discovery of Demordaigle’s personnel file did not follow the current trial date of January 2, 2024, the parties’ stipulation filed July 26, 2023 completely resolves the discovery regarding Demordaigle’s personnel file.  As noted in the reply, Demordaigle was served with the parties’ protective order on August 12, 2023 and thus absent an objection pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the last day for Defendant to produce Demordaigle’s personnel file is September 20, 2023.  (Reply at p.3:3-5.)  Thus, there is no need to reopen discovery for Demordaigle’s personnel file.

Reopening Discovery for the Deposition of Rudolfo Labrador

            Plaintiff asserts that the reopening of discovery is necessary to obtain testimony of a key witness, Rudolfo Labrador.  (Motion at p.4:19-20.)  “On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff R.V. was deposed. On March 3, 2023, perpetrator Charles DeMordaigle was deposed. On July 7, 2023, treating physician Dr. Elsa Ferris was deposed.”  (Majerus Decl. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff’s Counsel claims that these depositions revealed the identities of additional witnesses who needed to be deposed and that after learning the name of Rudolfo Laborador, “[Plaintiff’s Counsel] immediately began [their] investigation to obtain Labrador’s contact information. However, [Plaintiff’s Counsel] w[as] unable to locate Mr. Labrador until just recently, and are now able to take his deposition.”    (Majerus Decl. ¶ 6.) 

            From the moving papers, it is unclear why Rudolfo Laborador is a key witness or when Plaintiff discovered the identity of Rudolfo Laborador.  However, the opposing papers clearly denote that during Rodolphe Charles Demordaigle’s deposition on March 2, 2023, “Mr. Demordaigle described he and his godson took a group of twelve kids to different biotic communities in the Los Angeles basin including tide pools in Malibu to a yellow pine forest in the San Gabriel Mountains. Mr. Demordaigle identified his godson as Rudy Labrador.”  (Uyeshima Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D.)  In relevant part, Demordaigle testified that his godson – Rudy Labrador – would go on these trips with students.  (Uyeshima Decl., Exh. D [Demordaigle Depo. at pp.144:23-145:4.) 

            As alleged in the SAC, “DEMORDAIGLE began grooming Plaintiff by giving special treatment, inviting client on a mountain trip to search for rocks alone.”  (SAC ¶ 20.)  Thus, the testimony of Demordaigle’s godson who may have driven students such as Plaintiff to this alleged mountain trip is potentially relevant.  Moreover, as noted in reply, the issue – as noted in the prior declaration (Majerus Decl. ¶ 6) – in locating Rudolfo Laborador was due to the incorrect first name of “Rudy” being used for the search.  (Reply at p.2:3-13.) 

            As the proposed deposition does appear relevant, and it does appear that Plaintiff was diligent in attempting to set the deposition of Rudolfo Laborador, there is good cause in reopening discovery in this limited capacity.  Further, while Defendant claims that it will suffer prejudice, the claim of prejudice is unspecified and does not appear to be more than merely participating in a deposition.  (Uyeshima Decl. ¶ 7.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED IN PART.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff R.V.’s motion to reopen discovery to reopen discovery is GRANTED IN PART.

Discovery is solely reopened for Plaintiff to take the deposition of Rudolfo Laborador.  The instant motion is otherwise denied.  Discovery cut-off is to otherwise follow the July 17, 2023 minute order and the parties’ stipulation filed on July 26, 2023.

Moving Party is to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED: May 26, 2022                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court