Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV41857, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41857    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Plaintiff Adrienne Tripp suffered a trip-and-fall injury on a public parkway in Sherman Oaks due to an uplifted sidewalk caused by overgrown tree roots and an inoperative streetlight. She sustained severe injuries resulting in systemic health complications. Plaintiff Hoss Zargaran asserts a claim for loss of consortium. The City is the only remaining defendant.

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiffs requested and obtained a written agreement from the City to waive the 30-day pre-trial discovery cutoff under CCP § 2024.020. Plaintiffs served three PMK deposition notices the same day, setting the depositions for April 4, 2025, for the Bureaus of Street Services, Street Lighting, and Urban Forestry.

Defendant filed an opposition arguing that the discovery cutoff was April 1, 2025, and that Plaintiff's motion seeks to compel PMK depositions after this deadline. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reopen discovery under CCP § 2024.050. Defendant relies on Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1590, to argue that it is reversible error to grant a motion to compel after the cutoff without first reopening discovery. However, Pelton-Shepherd involved a motion heard after the discovery motion cut-off date, whereas here, trial is set for April 30, 2025, and the hearing is within the permissible time for discovery motions (15 days prior to trial under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020(a).)

Defendant further argues that the parties' agreement only pertained to written discovery responses and not PMK depositions. But that argument is not supported by the parties’ email exchange. On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel stated, “Please confirm that your client waives the 30-day discovery cutoff for the parties to conduct discovery for any propounding discovery requests my client propounds today. If not, PMK depositions will be noticed for March 27, 2025. If you do waive the 30-day cutoff, depositions will be noticed for April 1, 2025, and your client’s discovery responses will also be due April 1, 2025.” In response, defense counsel wrote, “I already told you I agree.”

There is no language limiting the agreement to written discovery only, nor is there any basis to now construe the agreement as so limited. The parties’ email exchange supports a  waiver of the 30-day discovery cutoff for both written discovery and the PMK depositions noticed that same day.

Further, Defendant argues that the purported extension of discovery into the discovery cut-off period is invalid because it does not specify a “specific extended date” as required by CCP § 2024.060. However, the February 25, 2025 email exchange confirms the waiver of the 30-day discovery cut-off. By agreeing to the waiver, the parties effectively extended the discovery deadline to a date prior to trial. This satisfies the statutory requirement of a writing that specifies the extended date, as the waiver itself functionally defined the discovery period to remain open through the date of deposition and up to trial.

Accordingly, Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s deposition notice that discovery is closed is not valid because it contravenes the parties’ agreement to extend the discovery cutoff beyond 30 days prior to trial for all discovery propounded on February 25, 2025, which includes the deposition requests at issue. Defendant also did not appear at the noticed depositions. Therefore, the motion is granted.

The Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification, as Defendant agreed to extend the discovery cutoff. Sanctions in the amount of $500 are imposed against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 20 days of the date of this order.

MOTION TO CONTINUE
        Defendant City of Los Angeles moves to continue trial under CCP § 2024.050(a) and CRC Rule 3.1332, citing good cause based on new medical developments and the need for further discovery. Plaintiff Adrienne Tripp underwent shoulder surgery (left humerus ORIF) on February 12, 2025, which her expert, Dr. Lawrence Miller, attributes to injuries from the subject incident. The surgery and its aftereffects are now central to Plaintiff’s claimed damages, including a $6 million life care plan.

Defendant argues it needs additional time to:

1.  Depose Plaintiff regarding her recent surgery;

2.  Conduct an IME with Dr. Theodore Gregorius, scheduled for August 4, 2025;

3.  Subpoena post-surgical medical records; and

4.  Allow expert witnesses to evaluate the new evidence.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff requires six months of recovery before undergoing meaningful physical examination.

Plaintiff argues that she is willing to stipulate to exclude all evidence regarding Ms. Tripp’s February 2025 shoulder surgery to avoid a trial continuance. In light of Plaintiff’s proposal and the fact that this is a 3.5-year-old case, there is no basis to continue the trial. The grounds for the continuance all relate to the shoulder surgery, but they are rendered moot by the stipulation. Accordingly, the motion is denied upon the filing of a stipulation excluding all evidence regarding Ms. Tripp’s February 2025 shoulder surgery, including its inclusion in Plaintiff’s life care plan.

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’s 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.