Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV29050, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29050    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION

Hearing Date: 11/14/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV29050 CHLOE SANCHEZ vs MARCUS KYLE SY, et al. 

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff 

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: DENIED

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this case. Trial was set for October 2, 2024. On September 13, 2024, the Court issued a minute order stating, “On July 12, 2024, the Court denied the parties’ stipulation for a continuance, finding that there was not sufficient good cause, as the parties had sufficient time to complete the identified discovery and mediation prior to trial.” Due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s trial commitment in another matter, the trial date was rescheduled to January 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. With the exception of expert discovery, all other case-related deadlines will not follow the new trial date. Fact discovery, is now closed, and the time for Defendant to file a discovery motion has also expired.

Despite this, Defendant has filed the present motion seeking leave to conduct Plaintiff’s mental examination after the discovery cut-off date. In his moving papers, Defendant acknowledges that discovery is closed but argues that fact discovery should be reopened to allow for Plaintiff’s mental examination. However, in denying the parties' stipulation and the motion to reopen discovery, the Court has already ruled that there is not good cause to reopen discovery, stating that “the parties had sufficient time to complete the identified discovery.” Accordingly, the Court allowed only the expert discovery deadline to follow the new trial date.

Defendant had ample time to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition and mental examination but failed to do so. Furthermore, Defendant did not file a motion to reopen discovery prior to filing the present motion. The Court should not consider this motion, as it was filed after the deadline for Defendant to file a discovery motion. Furthermore, Defendant’s arguments for reopening discovery are conclusory and fail to address all relevant factors under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050(b). The Court finds that Defendant has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.

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.