Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: SC129832, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129832    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Britton, Trustee of the Leila Sackett Britton Trust 1994 as Amended v. Britton

SUBJECT:               MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Layne Britton

RESP. PARTY:        Plaintiff Devon Birtton, Trustee of the Leila Sackett Britton Trust 1994 as Amended

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Layne Britton’s Motion to Extend Discovery Completion deadline is DENIED.  Layne fails to show establish good cause to reopen discovery.

I.  Requested discovery

            Layne fails to clearly identify what discovery he seeks to propound.  Plaintiff submits a copy of the only discovery that Layne ever propounded, a set for RFPs served on 5-31-22.  See Opposition, Ex. A. 

II.  Length of pending action and trial date continuances

            The complaint was filed on 9-13-18, approximately four years ago. 

            Trial was initially set for 2-24-20. 

            On 1-15-20, the 2-24-20 trial date was vacated on the Court’s own motion.  The trial date was reset by the Court for 12-14-20. 

            On 11-19-20, trial was continued from 12-14-20 to 5-3-21 in response to Layne’s ex parte request to continue trial and trial dates. 

            On 3-5-21, the trial was continued from 5-3-21 to 12-13-21.

            On 10-29-21, the trial was continued from 12-13-21 to 2-22-22 in response to Layne’s ex parte application to continue the trial date. 

            On 2-14-22, the trial was continued from 2-22-22 to 7-11-22 pursuant to stipulation.

            On 7-11-22, the Court continued the trial date from 7-11-22 to 10-3-22, because the parties were not ready for trial.

            In total, the trial date in this action has been continued six times over approximately four years.

 III.  Layne fails to demonstrate good cause to reopen discovery under CCP §2024.050

            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 trial.  See CCP 2024.020.  “The purpose of imposing a time limit on discovery is to expedite and facilitate trial preparation and to prevent delay.¿ Without a cutoff date, the parties could tie up each other and the trial court in discovery and discovery disputes right up to the eve of trial or beyond. Furthermore, . . . to be effective the cutoff date must be firm or some litigants will manipulate the proceedings to avoid the cut-off date.”  Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Court¿(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295. 

“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.”  CCP §2024.050(a).  The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ CCP §2024.050(a), (b).

Pursuant to CCP §2024.050, 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; and (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 §2025.050(b); see Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal.App.4^th 401, 420-421 (trial court properly denied request to reopen discovery to conduct expert discovery where moving party refused to disclose grounds for late expert witnesses and failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking discovery prior to the cutoff date). 

            Layne fails to demonstrate that he diligently pursued discovery.  Layne contends he was unable to propound discovery because suffered from medical issues, and he was in pro per.  However, Layne fails to specify what medical conditions interfered with his ability to conduct discovery.  See Dec. of L. Britton, ¶9.  Layne fails to explain how his medical issues prevented him from conducting any discovery for three entire years.  Layne was also represented by counsel at different points of this litigation.  Layne fails to demonstrate that he was diligent in seeking discovery, nor does he explain why he was unable to perform any discovery during the litigation.

            Layne fails to identify what discovery he seeks to propound. Allowing further discovery to proceed at this point likely will require a seventh continuance of trial, further delaying this action.