Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV42196, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42196    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      March 25, 2025                                             TRIAL DATE:  December 1, 2025

CASE:                         Yu Fang Chen v. Zhi He

CASE NO.:                      21STCV42196

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Yu Fang Chen

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant Zhi He

Plaintiff Yu Fang Chen (“Chen”) filed this action seeking to recover $600,000 that she allegedly loaned to defendant Zhi He (“He”).  The case was initially assigned to Department 14, Judge Terry Green presiding.  On January 26, 2023, the parties stipulated to consolidate this action with related case, Case No. 22STCV25656.  At the time of the written stipulation, this case (Case No. 21STCV42196) was set for trial on February 21, 2023; no trial date had been set in the related case.  Pursuant to written stipulation, Judge Green continued the trial date for July 31, 2023, and set all discovery cut-offs to the new trial date.  Accordingly, discovery was set to close on June 30, 2023.

On June 28, 2023, this case was assigned to Judge Cherol Nellon in Department 14.

On June 30, 2023, discovery closed.

On July 11, 2023, Defendant filed a peremptory challenge to Judge Nellon pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.  On the same day, the court granted the peremptory challenge and vacated the trial date of July 31, 2023.

On July 13, 2023, this case was reassigned to this court, Department 31. 

On January 25, 2024, this court set trial for February 18, 2025.  Discovery was not reopened.

On December 5, 2024, Chen served Demand for Production of Documents, Set Three, on He.  The next day, He served an objection in response to the discovery request on the grounds that discovery had closed.

On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Three.  Plaintiff requests sanctions against He and his attorney of record. 

On March 11, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition.

On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff replied.

Upon review of the case files, the moving papers, opposition, and reply, the court finds the motion lacks merit.  “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 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 the trial of the action. [¶] Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.). Indeed, “a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard.”  (Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Prods., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586, italics in original.) 

Here, discovery closed on June 30, 2023.  Discovery was not reopened by court order, nor did Plaintiff seek to reopen discovery by motion. 

Plaintiff argues the discovery cut-off was automatically reset to the new trial date.  Plaintiff is mistaken.  Plaintiff’s argument conflicts with the plain language of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, which states in pertinent part, “[o]n 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  As the statute suggests by negative implication, the setting of a new trial date does not function to automatically reopen discovery.

Plaintiff further argues this court implicitly recognized that discovery was ongoing or could be revisited in anticipation of the new trial date when the court stated in its January 25, 2024, order that “Counsel are to engage in an informal discovery conference prior to filing any motion to compel further responses. Counsel are to submit a stipulation that the parties extend the time to file any motion to compel further to thirty days after the informal discovery conference.”  (Minute Order, dated 1/25/24.) Perhaps this is a reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.  But this issue was not before the court at that time. 

Stated once more, discovery closed in June 2023.  Plaintiff did not move to reopen discovery.[1]  Nonetheless, Plaintiff propounded discovery after the close of discovery and filed this motion to compel a further response.  Plaintiff, having not moved to reopen discovery in the first instance, is not entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s further response.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

            Defendant to give notice.

Dated:   March 25, 2025