Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV15216, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15216    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

I.            Introduction

This action arises from a three-car collision that occurred on November 9, 2021.  On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Shirley M. Anduze (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against defendants Pai-Chen Pan, Gurjot Singh, Samra Transport, Inc., and Baldev Singh for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

Defendants Gurjot Singh, Samra Transport, Inc., and Baldev Singh (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to reopen discovery to conduct an independent medical examination (“IME”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2024.050 and 2032.220 on the grounds that an IME of Plaintiff is necessary to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s claims and to properly prepare their defense at trial.  Also, there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff opposed the motion and Defendants have not replied.  Trial is currently set for February 20, 2024.

II.          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, subd. (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¿¿section 2024.050.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b);¿Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc.¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)  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, subd. (a).)

The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subds. (a), (b).)  In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to¿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, subd. (a).)¿  

III.        Discussion

Trial is currently set for February 20, 2024, which the Court set pursuant to the ex parte application filed by Defendants.  (See October 9, 2023 Minute Order.)  The Court noted that it cannot reopen discovery by ex parte application, and thus directed Defendants to reserve the next available motion hearing date to reopen discovery as soon as possible and file the motion promptly.  (Id.)  On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed their motion.  As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Defendants satisfied the meet and confer requirements.  (Declaration of Allen S. Aho (“Aho Decl.”), ¶ 7.)

Defendants state the good cause to grant this motion is essentially the same as the good cause that the Court found to continue trial.  Specifically, Defendants’ counsel’s case management system was inadvertently not updated to reflect that California recognizes Native American Day (September 22 in 2023) as of 2022, and thus provided an incorrect discovery cutoff date.  As a result, Defendants’ counsel noticed Plaintiff’s IME one day after the discovery cutoff of October 9, 2023.

In support of their motion, Defendants advance the declaration of counsel for Defendants, Allen S. Aho.  Aho states that the IME is necessary because it is critical to Defendants’ defense due to Plaintiff’s claims related to fibromyalgia.  Defendants cannot properly assess Plaintiff’s claims without an expert-facilitated understanding of Plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and the status of that condition after the subject accident.  (Aho Decl., ¶ 10.)  Further, the IME is the only discovery Defendants need to conduct and the reason that it was not completed is due to an administrative error for which Defendants should not be held responsible.  (Aho Decl., ¶ 11.)  As to the third consideration—whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party—Aho states trial has already been continued to allow this motion to be heard so permitting the IME will not delay trial.  (Aho Decl., ¶ 9.)  Lastly, the length of time that has passed between the prior trial date and the new date is near as minimal as possible since Defendants reserved the earliest available motion hearing date pursuant to the Court’s instructions. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants’ motion should be denied because there is no excusable neglect in this case and Defendants have failed to meet its burden.  However, the Court disagrees for the reasons set forth above by Defendants.    

IV.         Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants Gurjot Singh, Samra Transport, Inc., and Baldev Singh’s motion to reopen discovery to conduct an independent medical examination is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

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 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. 

     Dated this 19th day of December 2023