Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: BC713448, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713448    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

            This action involves a dispute regarding the Biafora Family Limited Partnership (“BFLP”).  Among the causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) is a cause of action for dissolution of BFLP.  In September 2019, during the pendency of this action, Defendants initiated buyout proceedings pursuant to a provision in the BFLP partnership agreement (the “BFLP Agreement”). 

            On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen discovery (the “Motion”).  The Motion requests that the Court reopen discovery to allow Plaintiffs to: (1) obtain financial documents concerning BFLP since 2019; and (2) discover evidence regarding the circumstances of their September 2019 expulsion from BFLP.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), subdivision 2024.020, except as otherwise provided, 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 of the action.  (CCP § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings unless a motion to reopen discovery is filed and granted pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.  (CCP § 2024.020, subd. (b); Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)  CCP section 2024.050 provides that 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.  (CCP § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ (CCP § 2024.050, subds. (a)-(b).)¿ In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers any matter relevant to the leave requested, including:¿(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 § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not presented circumstances that warrant the reopening of discovery.  First, for the reasons stated in the Court’s October 11, 2022 order on the Parties’ briefs on outstanding issues, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the relevance of post-2019 financial documents for determining the valuation of their partnership shares pursuant to Stephenson v. Drever (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1167.  Second, Plaintiffs have not presented any facts indicating why they have not previously attempted to discover facts regarding the circumstances of the September 2019 buyout.  Plaintiffs have been aware of their expulsion and buyout since the vote occurred, which was over three years ago.

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

                                                                                      Dated this 14th day of October 2022