Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC667644, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 12, 2023

Case Name: Running, et al. v. Covina Irrigating Company, et al.

Case No.: BC623542

Matter: Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Praxedes E. Running and the Praxedes E. Running Trust 

Responding Party: (1) Defendant Covina Irrigating Company

(2) Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On March 20, 2017, Plaintiffs Praxedes E. Running and the Praxedes E. Running Trust filed the operative Third Amended Complaint against Covina Irrigating Company (“CICO”), City of Azusa (“City”), Azusa Valley Water Company (“AVWC”), San Gabriel River Water Committee (“SGRWC”), George Morrow, Fran Delach, Chet Anderson, William McIntyre, Andrew McIntyre, and Canyon Water Company arising out of Defendants’ alleged diversion of water from an open canal on Plaintiffs’ property. 

Plaintiffs now seek to reopen expert discovery with respect to Defendants CICO and SGRWC.  Plaintiffs seek such relief because one of their experts has retired and their other experts have modified opinions based on (1) the changing conditions of the subject property since this case was filed and (2) additional fact discovery that has been ongoing between Plaintiffs and Defendants City/AVWC.  Plaintiffs contend there would be no prejudice because all discovery was already reopened with respect to the City and AVWC due to the reversal of their judgment.  

To determine whether discovery should be reopened the Court is to consider any matter related to the request, 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.

(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(b).)

CICO has submitted a declaration indicating, “Should Plaintiff wish to reopen all expert discovery and allow all parties to serve new designations of expert witnesses and allow all experts to offer new opinions not previously given, I would be agreeable to the same on the condition that CICO’s experts have the opportunity to re-inspect the subject property so as to not prejudice CICO in its defense in this matter.”

SGRWC has submitted a declaration stating, “Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to take her Motion off calendar if defendant SGRWC agreed to sign a stipulation to re-open expert discovery and the re-designation of expert witnesses as to plaintiffs and defendant SGRWC. Both plaintiffs and defendant SGRWC agreed and a stipulation and proposed order was forwarded. . . . Plaintiff has refused to honor her agreement and her proposed request to re-open expert discovery including re-designation of expert witnesses, which would naturally include the re-inspection of the subject property of plaintiffs’ operative complaint by the expert witnesses due to not only the passage of time, but by reason that there will likely be new expert witnesses.” 

In a Reply declaration, Plaintiffs indicate they “have no objection to allowing complete re-designation of all expert witness for all defendants, which is apparently what defendants are seeking in their responsive pleadings but request that if percipient discovery is reopened to allow inspection by SGRWC/CICO, that it be reopened so Plaintiffs may serve percipient discovery on CICO and SGRWC.”

As there is no opposition to the reopening of expert discovery for Plaintiffs, CICO, and SGRWC, the Motion is granted.  Due to the changed conditions of the subject property, Defendants’ experts can re-inspect the subject property.  No other “percipient” discovery has been justified.  

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.