Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV30516, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30516    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Miao Li and Plaintiffs Miaoxin Yu and Jesse Weiner’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is GRANTED in part, in that Plaintiffs are granted leave to take the deposition of Defendant Jianxiang Shi. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiffs to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

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).)

A party may move to take discovery or have a discovery motion heard after the cut-off date, as follows:

(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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subds. (a), (b).)

Plaintiffs Miaoxin Liu and Jesse Weiner (Plaintiffs) seek to reopen discovery in this matter, closed with the previous trial date of June 6, 2023. But they do not specifically delineate what discovery they hope to obtain. Plaintiffs argue that there “remain depositions and other outstanding discovery requests that must be addressed and responded to by Defendants,” but they do not identify which depositions or discovery this refers to. (Motion at p. 4.) The sole reason they provide for seeking further discovery now is the incarceration and “stonewalling” of Defendant Jianxiang Shi. (Motion at p. 4.) However, Shi’s incarceration lasted for a 12-month period from 2021 to 2022, and Plaintiff identifies no outstanding discovery to which Shi has not responded. (Weiner Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Defendants in opposition contend that Plaintiffs have not sought or noticed their depositions since the inception of this case, a contention which Plaintiffs make no effort to rebut in their reply.

However, the trial date is currently more than a year distant. And Plaintiffs in their motion present emails with Jianxiang Shi’s then-counsel from 2021, seeking deposition dates for this Defendant, only to be informed that Defendants were changing counsel and that Shi had been incarcerated. (Motion Exh. 1.)

Plaintiffs’ have shown good cause for a limited reopening of discovery solely to take the deposition of Jianxiang Shi. This is the only Defendant for whom Plaintiffs have identified any prior efforts to obtain their deposition, and he is the only defendant for whom Plaintiffs have offered a reason why his deposition has not yet been taken. Plaintiffs have not, however, shown good cause to take any other depositions or to propound further written discovery.

The motion to reopen discovery is therefore GRANTED in part, in that Plaintiffs are granted leave to take the deposition of Defendant Jianxiang Shi. The motion is otherwise DENIED.