Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV32828, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV32828, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32828 Hearing Date: May 6, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 5/6/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 21STCV32828 MIKAEL KOLLING vs. SEVADHAM MANAGEMENT, LP

Motion: MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Moving Party: Plaintiffs

Responding Party: Defendant Sevadham Management

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS TO COMPEL INTIAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ARE DENIED.

Background

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present elder abuse case. The current discovery cut-off date is February 14, 2024, tied to the prior trial date of March 15, 2024. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests but Defendant Sevadham Management failed to provide the discovery responses at issue. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel but because the motion seeks discovery after the discovery cut-off date, the hearing was continued to today. On February 16, 2024, Plaintiffs moved the Court to reopen discovery to align with the current trial date set for September 16, 2024.

Legal Standard

“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).)

Discussion

The moving party filed a declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution. Plaintiffs seek to reopen discovery for the Court to hear their motions to compel Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery responses.

Plaintiffs failed to discuss all the factors under § 2024.050. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their diligence in seeking the discovery or the timely hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. The first set of discovery responses were served in November 2022, a year after Defendant filed its answer. Furthermore, the last communication between Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding the outstanding discovery responses occurred in April 2023, yet Plaintiffs waited another seven months to file the motion to compel. Plaintiffs did not sufficiently explain their lack of diligence in seeking discovery or why the discovery motion was not filed earlier to avoid the situation they are currently in where they must request the court to reopen discovery because the motions to compel was filed near the discovery cutoff date.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not address the likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the scheduled date or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar. Although Plaintiffs state the reason they need to reopen discovery is to obtain responses to their first set of discovery responses, the Court questions whether Plaintiffs are planning to depose the Defendant or request further written discovery responses to be served. Without addressing these questions, the Court is unsure if the trial will be continued again and how it will impact the Court’s calendar.

Plaintiffs failed to discuss all the factors under § 2024.050 and their tardiness in pursuing discovery. Based on the timeline of the case and the matters submitted before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiffs did not pursue discovery or their motion to compel diligently. Thus, the motion to reopen discovery is denied. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED for seeking discovery after the discovery cut-off date.

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.