Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV23089, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23089    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability action.  On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff Glenn Drexler (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Naos Yachts, Inc., Benjamin Morse (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20, alleging one cause of action for negligence under general maritime law and California law.

On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to reopen discovery.  On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On February 7, 2024, Defendants filed a reply.

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 under Section 2016.040.”  (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

Defendants seek to reopen discovery so that they may conduct a number of depositions of Plaintiff and multiple non-retained treating physicians of Plaintiff.  Defendants contend good cause exists for an order reopening discovery due to Plaintiff still receiving medical treatment in connection with the underlying incident, and that Plaintiff’s prior surgeon, Dr. Larsen, was recently replaced by Dr. Patel, whom Defendants have yet to depose.  Defendants also contend the Court purportedly told Defendants at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to augment his witness list that the surgeon who is involved should be the one who is testifying, which Defendants construe as requiring a deposition.

Defendants contend they have been diligent in seeking the requested information, and that Dr. Larsen’s recent deposition testimony stated Plaintiff’s pain affects his quality of life. Defendants further contend the discovery requested is narrow and will not delay trial.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends it is unnecessary for the Court to reopen discovery because what the Court actually said at the prior hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to augment witness list was that Defendants’ additional desired depositions may be justified if Dr. Larsen’s deposition so drastically changes the whole dynamic of the case.  (Dinsmore Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 25:11-20.)  Plaintiff contends that nothing from Dr. Larsen’s deposition justifies reopening discovery.

Plaintiff also contends that Plaintiff continuing to see Dr. Mealer and Dr. Valdez since they were deposed in June 2023 does not provide a legal basis for deposing them again.  Plaintiff also contends Dr. Patel has not provided Plaintiff with any treatment since he was designated as a non-retained expert on April 6, 2023, and Defendants’ failure to take his deposition since then is not a basis for reopening discovery on the eve of trial.  Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have not been diligent in seeking this discovery and that reopening discovery will prevent the case from proceeding to trial on February 22, 2024.

The Court agrees with Defendants.  This action has been pending for almost four years now, and trial is scheduled for February 22, 2024, i.e., just one week after the hearing on this motion.  If the Court were to grant Defendants’ motion, it would effectively delay trial because it is highly unlikely the Defendants will be able to fully depose four different people and get the deposition transcripts back in time before the trial.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(3).)  Additionally, on December 21, 2023, the Court continued the trial date from January 23, 2024 to February 22, 2024.  (See Id., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(4).)

Moreover, it is unclear what significantly different information Defendants think they will obtain by deposing Dr. Valdez and Dr. Mealer again.  Merely continuing Plaintiff’s treatment does not necessarily mean there have been any significant changes warranting additional depositions of those physicians.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(1).)

Furthermore, Dr. Patel was designated as an expert in April 2023; it seems then that Defendants had sufficient opportunity to depose him before the discovery cutoff in this case.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(2).)   It also seems that Dr. Patel replacing Dr. Larsen in terms of potential surgery for Plaintiff does not drastically alter the whole dynamic of this case.  (See Dinsmore Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 25:11-20; Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(1).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to reopen discovery.
CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the motion to reopen discovery.

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.  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.

Dated this 15^th day of February 2024