Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV33535, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33535    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION TO QUASH AND STAY DEFENDANTS MANOUG TOKATLIAN AND LENA TOKATLIAN’S AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF DENISE RAMORINO’S NON-RETAINED EXPERTS

Hearing Date: 12/9/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV33535 DENISE RAMORINO vs LYFT, INC., et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff Denise Ramorino

Responding Party: Defendants Manoug Tokatlian and Lena Tokatlian

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: DENIED

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion

Plaintiff Denise Ramorino (“Plaintiff”) moves to for an order to quash the deposition notices and stay the depositions of its non-retained experts Simon Dardasht, and Angelica O’Boyle. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendants Manoug Tokatlian and Lena Tokatlian (“Defendants”) oppose and Plaintiff replies.

Background

The complaint was filed on September 13, 2021. Trial was initially set for March 13, 2023.             

On February 27, 2023, at the final status conference, after the case was not served, the trial date was vacated.           

On October 16, 2023, Defendants filed their answer.           

On November 2, 2023, at the trial setting conference, trial was set for November 4, 2024. All discovery/motion cut-offs attached to that trial date.           

On October 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application and continued trial to January 31, 2025. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-offs remained attached to the November 4, 2024, trial date. (Min. Order, 10/2/24.)

On November 5, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery pertaining to the four fact witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s September 17, 2024, deposition and limited to the issue of Plaintiff’s damages claim. (Min. Order, 11/5/24.)

Discussion

Based on the procedural history above, apart from the limited order reopening discovery on November 5, 2024, the expert discovery deadlines attach to the November 4, 2024 trial date.

The instant motion seeks to quash and stay the depositions of Plaintiff’s non-retained expert witnesses. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.030, any party shall have the right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to expert witnesses on or before the 15^th day before trial, and to have motions concerning said witnesses heard on or before the 10th day before trial. Therefore, the deadline to file this motion concerning the deposition of expert witnesses was October 25, 2024 (ten days before the November 4, 2024 trial date).

“[A] party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard. But the fact that a party does not have a right to have a discovery motion heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not mean the court has no power to hear it, or that the court errs in hearing it. Indeed, subdivision (a) of section 2024.050 specifically allows a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date by providing that ‘the court may grant leave ... 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.’ But that statute also specifies that such leave may be granted ‘[o]n motion of any party.’ [Citation.] Moreover, such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and in exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion the court must consider various factors. …” (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 1568, 1586 (alterations in original).) In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, the court held that the trial court’s discretion to hear a discovery motion was limited by the court first hearing and granting a motion for leave to reopen discovery. (Id. at 1588.)¿ 

Therefore, because this motion is being heard after the expert discovery motion cut-off, and Plaintiff has not moved to reopen discovery, nor has Plaintiff discussed section 2024.050 in this motion, the motion is denied.

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.