Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 20STCV19420 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV19420, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying This Action Pending the Hearing of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied. However, American Honda is granted a one week opportunity for the dept b clerk to manually clear opening a hearing date for such a motion to be heard in Dept B on minimum timely statutory notice. "

Case Number: 20STCV19420 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, April 6, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 11

PROCEEDINGS

Tamara Bard v. La Pointe Maintenance Association, Inc., et al.

20STCV19420

1. Tamara Bard’s Motion to Compel the Inspection Report of Independent Medical Examiner Cary Albertstone, M.D.

2. Tamara Bard’s Motion to Quash Defendant's Overbroad Subpoena to Anthem for "Any and All" Medical and Insurance Records

3. Tamara Bard’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena to Hicham Siouty, M.D.

TENTATIVE RULING

Tamara Bard’s Motion to Compel the Inspection Report of Independent Medical Examiner Cary Albertstone, M.D., Motion to Quash Defendant's Overbroad Subpoena to Anthem for “Any and All” Medical and Insurance Records, and Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena to Hicham Siouty, M.D. are denied.

Background

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 21, 2020. Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint was filed on January 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of a dog bite injury and has alleged causes of action against the dog owner Bobbie Lopez as well as La Point Maintenance Association, Inc (the “HOA”), and its property management companies. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Negligence; 2. Premises Liability; 3. Strict Liability. On July 25, 2022, Defendant Bobbie Lopez’s Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint was denied and Plaintiff Tamara Bard’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Financial Discovery was denied. On October 25, 2022, Defendant’s ex parte application to continue trial was granted. The trial date is currently set for May 9, 2023. Previously, when the Court granted Defendant’s application to continue the trial date, the discovery cutoff date was not extended to the new trial date.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions

Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020 states:

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 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.

(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”

Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030 states:

“Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to a witness identified under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) on or before the 15th day, and to have motions concerning that discovery heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”

Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020(a), the deadline for motion hearings on non-expert discovery motions is fifteen days before trial. Pursuant to CCP § 2024.030, the deadline for motion hearings on expert discovery motions is ten days before trial. The pertinent trial date in this case, for purposes of the discovery motion cutoff date, was November 15, 2022. Although the trial date was continued to May 9, 2023, discovery was not reopened, and the discovery cutoff date did not correspond to this new trial date. In fact, Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery was denied. Thus, the deadline for hearings on discovery motions was either ten or fifteen days before November 15, 2022. As phrased by Plaintiff: “[T]his Court ruled that “[d]iscovery cut-off dates remain. It will extend by way of party stipulation only.” That Order has not been changed or modified.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, page 2, lines 4-6.) Thus, Plaintiff’s own three discovery motions are denied as they are being heard past the discovery motion cutoff date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.