Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV31776, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31776    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     May 22, 2023                         TRIAL DATE:  July 11, 2023

CASE:                         Melvin L. Ross v. DLT Transport, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV31776

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Melvin Ross

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 20, 2020, Plaintiff, Melvin Ross, filed this this action against Defendants, DLT Transport, LLC, and Edgar De La Torre, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

            On October 25, 2022, while taking the deposition of Defendant De La Torre’s (hereinafter, “Defendant”) expert, Plaintiff learned for the first time that Defendant claims there was no impact between the vehicles. 

On April 4, 2023, after Defense counsel refused to produce Defendant for deposition, Plaintiff filed this motion to reopen discovery. 

The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (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 demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿¿

III.      DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery so that he may take the depositions of Defendant and the responding police officer because Defendant now contends that no collision took place during the subject incident.  Prior to that contention, Defendant had admitted in his response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, served to Plaintiff on August 12, 2022, that there was a collision by stating that “the incident was a minor impact.”  Plaintiff sought to depose Defendant, but to date, Defense counsel has refused to produce Defendant for deposition.  (See Sider Declaration.) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause exists to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Defendant Edgar De la Torre and the responding officer. 

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The unopposed to reopen discovery is GRANTED and limited to issues consistent with this ruling. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   May 22, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.