Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC672215, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC672215    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Betty T. Yee, California State Controller’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is GRANTED.

Defendant to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Defendant California State Controller Betty T. Yee (Defendant) moves to reopen discovery in this action following reversal of this court’s ruling granting Plaintiff Golden State Pharmaceuticals, LLC’s (Plaintiff) motion for summary judgment. Defendant contends that discovery is automatically reopened following reversal of a judgment on appeal, and further argues that a discretionary reopening of discovery is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050. (Motion at pp. 8–13.)

Plaintiff in opposition argues that no automatic reopening of discovery occurred after the reversal because discovery had already closed prior to the court’s granting of the dispositive motion. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s proposed discovery is unnecessary, and ought to have been conducted prior to the appeal. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.)

The discovery history in this case is as follows. Trial in this matter was initially set for May 19, 2020. (See 12/14/18 Case Management Order.) This trial date was vacated due to the COVID pandemic, and a trial setting conference was rescheduled for the same date as the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See  4/13/20 Minute Order.) When that motion was granted on July 1, 2020, the trial setting conference was vacated. (See 7/1/20 Minute Order.) Defendant contends that both parties served deposition notices in March and April 2020, which were not taken due to the pandemic. (Haddad Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Defendant now seeks to serve new interrogatories and to take depositions, to which Plaintiff has objected. (Haddad Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.)

Defendant is correct that discovery is automatically reopened following reversal of judgment on appeal. “A case does not have one everlasting ‘initial’ trial date, but may have a new ‘initial’ trial date corresponding to a scheduled retrial or new trial of the action. Thus, after reversal the time clock for the ‘initial trial date’ under the Discovery Act is reset.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 250–251, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) “It is now well settled that discovery automatically reopens following a mistrial, order granting new trial, or reversal on appeal.”  (Hirano v. Hirano (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1, 6.) The reason for reopening discovery after reversal is based on the reasons for the discovery cutoff itself; the policy behind a firm discovery cutoff is to prevent “intentional manipulation of the trial date by way of continuances and postponements in order to extend the time for discovery.” (Fairmont Ins. Co., supra, 22 Cal.4^th at p. 252.) Discovery thus reopens after an appellate reversal of judgment, however, “for the simple reason that parties are unlikely to manipulate the discovery procedure by creating grounds for a new trial, mistrial, or appellate reversal merely in order to extend the time for discovery.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish this case authority is unconvincing. Plaintiff identifies concerns raised in the Fairmont decision regarding judgments entered on dispositive motions “before the initial cutoff date for discovery,” in which there would have been “little or no opportunity for full discovery of facts.” (Opposition at pp. 4–5; Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4^th at p. 253.) But the court only stated concern for such a situation, and did not indicate that such concerns marked the limits of its express holding. Indeed, Fairmont involved a reversal after trial on a defendant’s affirmative defenses (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4^th at p. 248), and Hirano involved a reversal of a dismissal that was entered at the trial’s outset.(Hirano, supra, 158 Cal.App.4^th at p. 5) — in both cases the judgments were entered after the discovery cutoff, before they were reversed. Such is the situation here, and discovery is accordingly reopened.

Accordingly, the motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.