Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2021-00041405-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 04, 2023

10/05/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00041405-CU-PO-CTL DOE VS RADY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Rady Children's Hospital Foundation-San Diego's motion for reconsideration of this court's August 18, 2023, order is DENIED.

To the extent Rady Foundation brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 1008, Rady Foundation's motion is DENIED. Pursuant to CCP § 1008(a): When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

Rady Foundation fails to offer any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Rady Foundation's argument is that Plaintiff raised new arguments in Plaintiff's reply papers to which Rady Foundation did not have an opportunity to respond. Rady Foundation also argues that it requested additional briefing at the hearing, but its request was denied. Neither of these arguments warrant reconsideration. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206 explains, [t]he burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial. (Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 592.) Case law after the 1992 amendments to section 1008 has relaxed the definition of 'new or different facts,' but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court. (See Garcia v. Hejmadi, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at pp. 689–690, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 228 [motion for reconsideration improperly granted where evidence reflected knowledge plaintiff had from outset of litigation] . . . .

New York Times, 135 Cal.App.4th at 212-213.

The arguments Rady Foundation raises on this motion are the same as those raised by Rady Foundation in its opposition and at oral argument on Plaintiff's motion to compel. Considering these circumstances, the court finds Rady Foundation fails to meet its burden under CCP § 1008(a).

To the extent Rady Foundation brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 128, and/or the court's inherent authority to reconsider prior orders [Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094], Rady Foundation's motion is DENIED. None of the arguments Rady Foundation raises persuades the court to reconsider Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017266  1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOE VS RADY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]  37-2021-00041405-CU-PO-CTL its prior ruling. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion against reconsideration of the court's August 18, 2023, order.

Rady Foundation's reply request to defer the hearing on its motion for reconsideration until after the hearing on Rady Foundation's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017266  1