Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV22840, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22840    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Estate of Milagros Morales, Edgar Raul Morales Garcia, Goldin Solano, Edgar Morales, Jr., and Samantha Morales

RESPONDING PARTY: None

I.                   Introduction

This action arises from a fatal car crash on May 26, 2019 in which Cleverson Fernandes drove his vehicle into the vehicle that Milagros Morales, Edgar Garcia, Edgar Garcia, Jr., Samantha Morales, and Goldin Solano were present.  Milagros Morales was killed in the crash.  The operative First Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) negligence—survival; (2) negligence—wrongful death; (3) negligence; (4) dangerous condition of public property—survival; (5) dangerous condition of public property—wrongful death; and (6) dangerous condition of public property.

Trial was originally set for October 23, 2023, and the discovery cut-off was September 22, 2023.  The Court continued trial to April 16, 2024.  As a result, Plaintiffs Estate of Milagros Morales, Edgar Raul Morales Garcia, Goldin Solano, Edgar Morales, Jr., and Samantha Morales (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to reopen discovery.  No opposition has been filed. 

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).)¿ “[A]¿continuance¿or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings” unless a motion to reopen discovery is filed and granted pursuant to¿section 2024.050.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b);¿Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc.¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)  Section 2024.050 provides that “[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).)

The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subds. (a), (b).)  In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to¿section 2024.050 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿  

III.             Discussion

The Court continued trial to April 16, 2024, which the Court set pursuant to the ex parte application filed by Plaintiffs.  (See September 29, 2023 Minute Order.)  The Court stated discovery cut-off dates to remain tied to the current, not the new trial date.  (Id.)  On November 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their motion to reopen discovery.  As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Plaintiffs satisfied the meet and confer requirements.  (Declaration of Montse P. Murillo (“Murillo Decl.”), ¶ 4.)

Upon review, the Court finds the balance of factors set forth in § 2024.050, subd. (b) weighs in favor of reopening discovery and having discovery cut-off dates be tied to the April 16, 2024 trial date.  Specifically, it is expected that defendant Cleverson Fernandes, who has not yet appeared in this case, will soon be seeking relief from default and will appear as a defendant.  (Murillo Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)  Plaintiffs need to depose defendant Cleverson Fernandes and obtain discovery from him.  (Murillo Decl., ¶ 8.)  Also, neither Plaintiffs nor defendant Ivory Heron Group have taken discovery from the other.  (Murillo Decl., ¶ 9.)  Plaintiffs need to obtain discovery from defendant Ivory Heron Group, which includes a person-most-qualified deposition, written discovery, and potentially other witness depositions.  (Id.)  Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that the delay in serving discovery on defendant Ivory Heron Group was the result of a calendaring error by counsel.  (Id.)  Furthermore, Plaintiffs request that discovery track from the current trial date; the length of time between the previous trial date and current trial date is about six months, which is not substantial considering the remaining discovery.  Lastly, it appears no party will be prejudiced by reopening discovery as no opposition has been filed by any party.   

IV.             Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.  

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. 

     Dated this 25th day of January 2024