Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV41794, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed this action. Discovery closed in April 2023, and on September 13, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. The Court granted reopening solely as to Plaintiff’s employment contract and denied Plaintiff’s request to reopen other areas of discovery, including service of various discovery requests. Plaintiff now moves the Court again to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of serving Requests for Admission, Set 5, on Defendant regarding the issue of comparative negligence.

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(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 CCP section 2024.050.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b); Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)¿ CCP 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(a).)¿

¿ “The purpose of imposing a time limit on discovery is to expedite and facilitate trial preparation and to prevent delay.¿ Without a cutoff date, the parties could tie up each other and the trial court in discovery and discovery disputes right up to the eve of trial or beyond. Furthermore, . . . to be effective the cutoff date must be firm or some litigants will manipulate the proceedings to avoid the cut-off date.”¿ (Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Court¿(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295.)¿ The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a), (b).)¿ In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers “any matter relevant to the leave requested,” including:¿¿

¿ (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).)¿¿

¿ A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP 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(a).)¿

The Court finds that the parties have sufficiently met and conferred on this matter. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, referring to the Court’s September 13, 2023 order, in which the Honorable Kerry Bensinger granted Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery solely as to Plaintiff’s employment contract with her prior employer and denied Plaintiff’s other requests, including those regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s prior discovery, such as Requests for Admission (RFAs). The Court’s rationale for denying Plaintiff’s original RFA requests was that “they have already been deemed admitted against Defendant.”

However, this motion is not a renewed request related to the September 13, 2023 order, as it concerns a new and distinct set of discovery responses specifically addressing Defendant’s comparative fault defense raised in the motion for summary adjudication. This issue of comparative fault was not addressed in the September 13, 2023 order, which focused solely on Defendant’s admission of liability. Plaintiff now seeks to address a separate aspect of liability through additional discovery, and thus is not seeking reconsideration of the prior ruling.

IN light of the fact that the only basis for oppositon of the requested new discovery was the argument that the motion was barred by CCP 1008, and the Court finds that it was not so barred, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery.

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.