Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV45737, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45737    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff’s employer, Southern California Pizza Company, filed this subrogation matter against Defendants to recover worker’s compensation benefits paid to Plaintiff Aurelia Lopez Flores as a result of the incident. On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in intervention in this matter to recover for her personal injuries pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and Labor Code section 3853. Trial is set for July 25, 2025. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Kuhn’s Enterprises, Inc. dba Brand Enhance Parking and Hospitality’s person most knowledgeable, Defendant Hotel Figueroa’s person most knowledgeable, and two key witnesses employed by Brand Enhance, Wilman Lopez and Jose Salguero, have failed to appear for deposition multiple times. Further, Plaintiff contends that Hotel Figueroa has failed to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One) and Supplemental Request for Production (Set One). Therefore, Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened for the following limited purposes:

1.  To take, or file motions to compel regarding, the deposition of Brand Enhance’s person most knowledgeable.

2.  To take, or file motions to compel regarding, the deposition of Hotel Figueroa’s person most knowledgeable.

3.  To take, or file motions to compel regarding, the deposition of witness Wilman Lopez.

4.  To take, or file motions to compel regarding, the deposition of witness Jose Salguero.

5.  To file motions to compel verified responses to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One) and Supplemental Request for Production (Set One) served on Hotel Figueroa on February 10, 2025.

Defendants’ main argument on this issue is that Plaintiff waited over 15 months after filing her Complaint in Intervention before noticing the key depositions in November 2024. Although Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s counsel did not argue for the reopening of discovery when the Court continued the prior trial date without continuing the fact discovery deadline, that does not foreclose Plaintiff’s opportunity to request reopening of discovery through a separate motion. Even if Plaintiff had raised the issue at the motion to continue hearing, the Court would have likely required Plaintiff to file a separate motion should any party have objected to reopening because that issue was not before the Court with notice.

Although the deposition notices were served approximately 14 months after Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Intervention, Plaintiff has shown in the reply and moving papers that defense counsel agreed to produce the deponents for depositions on mutually available dates prior to trial and even agreed to waive the discovery cut-off date. (Current defense counsel’s argument that the agreement was that of prior defense counsel is unavailing -- it was, in any event, Defendant's agreement.) For example, Defendant offered Brand Enhance’s PMK for deposition on February 27, 2025. Additionally, on February 12, 2025, Hotel Figueroa served objections to the noticed February 17, 2025 PMK deposition but expressly stated in writing that it would waive the discovery cutoff and make its PMK available at a mutually convenient time. (Exhibit “U” to Khorshidi Declaration.) Despite the late service of the deposition notices, the depositions were set to proceed in February 2025 based on agreements between counsel. The fact that they did not occur was due to defense counsel’s medical condition, not any fault of Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff met and conferred in good faith and refrained from filing a motion to compel based on Defendant’s willingness to produce the deponents when counsel was available.

As to the supplemental discovery responses, verifications have been served and Plaintiff no longer seeks to reopen discovery on that issue.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery as to the four deponents Wilman Lopez, Jose Salguero, Hotel Figueroa’s PMK, and Brand Enhance’s PMK and, to the extent necessary, motions to compel relating to these four deponents.
        Having been successful in its motion to reopen, and in light of the fact that Defendant had agreed to allow this discovery and had agreed to waive the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the reasonable amount of $4500. These sanctions are owed, jointly and severally, by Defendant and its counsel and are to be paid within 20 days of today.

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.