Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV37959, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37959    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      November 15, 2024                                    TRIAL DATE:  February 18, 2025

CASE:                                T.R. v. Doe 1, et al.

CASE NO.:                      22STCV37959

MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DATES PURSUANT TO COURT’S ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:                   Plaintiff T.R.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2

I.          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is a childhood sexual abuse case. According to the complaint, in 1991 or 1992, T.R. was repeatedly sexually assaulted as minor by Reverend Vincent E. Washington (Rev. Washington), a minister at Bethlehem Baptist Church (Church).  The childhood sexual abuse took place on Church’s premises.

On December 5, 2022, T.R. (hereafter, Plaintiff) commenced this action against the Church (sued as Doe 1) and Rev. Washington (sued as Doe 2) (collectively, Defendants).    

On September 12, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial date. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, trial was set to February 18, 2025. However, discovery deadlines remained tied to the original trial date of November 18, 2024.  Discovery closed on October 18, 2024. 

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Continue Discovery Dates Pursuant to Court’s Order Continuing Trial. 

On October 16, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition.

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

            Because discovery has closed, the court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to reopen discovery.

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 

            Upon consideration of the relevant factors and the filings in connection to this matter, the court finds good cause does not exist to reopen discovery. 

The Relevant Factors 

1) The necessity of and reason for discovery:  Plaintiff’s counsel states, “[t]he nature of this matter coupled with passage of time since the dates of sexual assault will require significant additional discovery and the testimony of numerous witnesses. Additional time extending beyond the current discovery cut-off date will be required in order for the case to be ready for trial.”  (Ekaireb Decl., ¶ 3.)  Missing from Plaintiff’s moving papers is any explanation of the specific discovery needed and how that discovery improves Plaintiff’s case. This factor weighs against Defendants’ request.  

2) Diligence or Lack of Diligence; Reasons Discovery Was Not Completed; Earlier Hearing for the Motion:  Plaintiff’s counsel states having “worked diligently to prosecute this matter and seeks to resolve the case in a manner the preserves judicial and litigation resources and economy.”  (Ekaireb Decl., ¶ 7.)  Without more, Plaintiff does not demonstrate diligence in completing discovery.  This factor weighs against Plaintiff’s request.  

3) Likelihood Permitting Discovery Will Prevent The Case From Going To Trial; Interfere With The Trial Calendar; Result In Prejudice:  Plaintiff does not discuss this element.  This factor weighs against Plaintiff’s request.  

4) The Length Of Time Between The Prior Trial Date And The Date Presently Set:  Trial was initially set for November 18, 2024.  Trial is now scheduled for February 18, 2025.   

After balancing the factors and considering the equities, the court does not find good cause to reopen discovery.  

IV.       CONCLUSION¿ 

The Motion to Continue Discovery, construed as a motion to reopen discovery, is DENIED. 

            Defendants to give notice, unless waived. 

Dated:   November 15, 2024