Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV10464, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10464    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Dawn Downs and Jeff Grange’s Motion to Compel Deposition is DENIED.

I.       MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

A party may make a motion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice” if that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Plaintiffs Dawn Downs and Jeff Grange (Plaintiffs) move to compel the depositions of Defendants Jose Garcia, Fernando Covarrubia, and Oliver Arellano (Defendants). Defendants in opposition argue that the discovery cutoff date has passed. (Opposition at p. 4.)

The discovery cut-off date is 30 days before the original trial date, and the motion cut-off date is 15-days before the original trial date. (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) “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., § 2024.020, subd. (b).)

The discovery cutoff in this case has passed, and Plaintiffs can obtain no relief on their motion. The initial trial date in this matter was February 9, 2021. The court vacated that trial date on February 1, 2021, and on March 18, 2021, trial was re-set for January 10, 2023. Trial is now, per order of February 1, 2023, scheduled for August 29, 2023. None of these orders postponed the dates related to discovery, and per Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020, subd. (b), continuing or postponement of trial does operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs argue that trial was not continued or postponed, but was “vacated” in the order of February 1, 2021, and re-set per the order of March 18, 2021.(Motion at pp. 1–2.) This argument rests on no substantive criteria or policy under the relevant statute, but purely on the wording of the order postponing trial. The discovery cutoff here was set in relation to the “original trial date,” and was not extended by subsequent orders vacating and re-setting the trial date, which operated as “postponements” under the operative statutes.

The motion is DENIED.