Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV03256, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV03256 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Hearing Date: 12/11/24¿
CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV03256 KATHLEEN JOHNSON
vs SOLOMON LAKTINEH
Moving Party: Plaintiff Kathleen Johnson
Responding Party: Defendant Solomon Laktineh
Notice: Sufficient¿
Ruling: MOTIONS DENIED
Background
On January 27, 2021,
Plaintiff Kathleen
Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, alleging negligence from a motor
vehicle accident. Trial was initially set for July 27, 2022. On July 13, 2022,
at the final status conference, the Court observed there was no service in this
case, and the trial date was vacated. On May 8, 2023, Defendant Solomon Laktineh
(“Defendant”) filed an answer. Trial and all related dates were then set for
May 22, 2024. (Min. Order, 5/10/23.) On April 10, 2024, the
Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application and continued trial and all
related dates to October 16, 2024. On October 16, 2024, the Court granted in
part Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued trial to October 21, 2024.
All discovery was closed, and the pre-motion cut-off remained in effect. (Min.
Order, 10/16/24.) On October 21, 2024, the Court granted a short continuance to
November 4, 2024 to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain a report or letter from
a medical provider to warrant a further continuance. The Court, on its own,
then continued trial to November 5, 2024. (Min. Order, 10/29/24.) On November
5, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial. After
Plaintiff appeared for trial and was not ready, the Court continued trial
multiple times until November 8, 2024, when both sides announced they were
ready. However, the Court continued trial to December 2, 2024 because no trial
courts were available. On December 2, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex
parte application to advance the hearing dates, but continued trial to December
13, 2024.
Motion to Re-Open
Discovery
Plaintiff now moves to
extend the discovery cut-off date to obtain outstanding discovery from
Defendant. Defendant filed a declaration in opposition on December 6, 2024.
Plaintiff replies. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the
late-filed opposition given that Plaintiff’s reply suggests she had sufficient
notice to respond.
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(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).)
Analysis
As
an initial matter, the declaration in support of this motion does not describe
a meet and confer effort around reopening discovery in this case.
Turning
to the merits, Plaintiff argues that despite diligent efforts, Defendant has
not produced necessary discovery. Plaintiff argues she has attempted to meet
and confer without success. The attached exhibits show that Plaintiff
propounded written discovery in February 2024 and September 2024. An email
dated April 19, 2024 from Plaintiff suggests that Defendant responded to the
discovery, but the parties were attempting to meet and confer on the deficient
responses. (See Marks Decl., Exh. 4.) However, the declaration of
Maryetta C. Marks in support of this motion fails to set forth exactly what
discovery is pending, or why Plaintiff never filed a motion to compel further responses
to the outstanding discovery. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the
Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has acted diligently. Next, Plaintiff’s general
assertion that the discovery is critical to prepare for trial and for expert
witnesses is not specific enough. Additionally, given the current trial date of
December 13, 2024, it appears allowing such discovery at this time would delay
trial further.
Therefore,
the motion to extend the discovery cut-off date is denied.
Motion
to Continue Trial
Plaintiff now also moves
to continue trial. Defendant filed a declaration in opposition on December 6, 2024.
Plaintiff replied. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the
late-filed opposition given that Plaintiff’s reply suggests she had sufficient
notice to respond.
Analysis
The discovery cut-off in this case has
expired. Plaintiff argues the continuance is necessary to complete discovery in
this case. However, given the Court’s ruling above denying Plaintiff’s motion
to extend discovery based primarily on the finding that Plaintiff has not shown
that she acted diligently to complete discovery, the Court finds insufficient
good cause to continue trial, especially for a 2021 case (see CRC 3.714)
(all unlimited civil trials should be completed in no more than 2 years).
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
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.