Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV01479, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01479    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present slip-and-fall case against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, alleging that she slipped on a floor in the store's deli section, which was wet and covered with corn kernels in front of the hot food bar where corn is served to customers. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved, and Plaintiff has been proceeding in pro per since. On November 15, 2024, the Court continued the trial from November 19, 2024, to April 9, 2025. However, the pretrial deadlines remained closed and were not extended to align with the new trial date. Plaintiff now requests that the Court reopen discovery to follow the new trial date. Defendant Ralphs filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

“The purpose of imposing a time limit on discovery is to expedite and facilitate trial preparation and to prevent delay.¿ Without a cutoff date, the parties could tie up each other and the trial court in discovery and discovery disputes right up to the eve of trial or beyond. Furthermore, . . . to be effective the cutoff date must be firm or some litigants will manipulate the proceedings to avoid the cut-off date.”¿ (Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Court¿(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295.)  The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a), (b).)¿ In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers “any matter relevant to the leave requested,” including:¿ 

(1)   The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿ 

(2)  The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.¿ 

(3)  Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.¿ 

(4)  The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.¿ 

        (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that she recently obtained a video recording from her former attorneys, which purportedly shows the store’s condition one hour before her fall. She contends that the video is crucial in proving the existence and duration of the hazardous condition (corn kernels and water on the floor) and Defendant’s knowledge of it. Plaintiff seeks to propound new discovery requests related to this video and obtain expert analysis. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not fully complied with prior discovery requests, specifically regarding maintenance logs, safety procedures, and records of prior similar incidents. She requests the production of these documents. Plaintiff further seeks to serve additional requests for production related to store maintenance, cleaning procedures, and safety protocols that she believes were inadequately addressed during prior discovery. Plaintiff also wishes to depose additional witnesses, including Defendant’s expert witnesses.

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s recent discovery requests, including the 3rd set of requests for production and 2nd set of special interrogatories, are largely duplicative of discovery previously propounded by Plaintiff’s prior counsel and already responded to by Defendant. Defendant asserts that extensive discovery has been completed, and Plaintiff’s former counsel served significant discovery before being relieved. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to complete discovery both while represented by counsel and after proceeding in pro per in July 2024. Despite this, Plaintiff failed to notice any depositions of Defendant’s employees or expert witnesses and waited until September 11, 2024, to serve duplicative production demands.

Analysis

In considering the arguments from both sides, the Court acknowledges that Defendant’s opposition raises some valid points. However, in the context of Plaintiff being without counsel as of July 18, 2024, and needing to familiarize herself with the facts of the case, procedural requirements, court processes, and applicable law within a short timeframe of just three months before the discovery cut-off date, the Court finds sufficient justification to reopen discovery under these circumstances.

Plaintiff has demonstrated the necessity of requested discovery. Specifically, key depositions, including Defendant’s deposition and expert depositions, remain outstanding. Additionally, Plaintiff recently obtained video footage of the premises showing the condition of the store one hour prior to the incident, which she had not previously reviewed. Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery related to this newly acquired evidence to fully develop her case. Moreover, denying Plaintiff the opportunity to depose Defendant’s expert witnesses, particularly when Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff’s expert, would result in undue prejudice to Plaintiff, who is navigating legal requirements on a relatively short time frame.

As to diligence, Defendant argues that Plaintiff, despite being without counsel since July 2024, waited until September 11, 2024, to serve additional discovery requests, and that some discovery requests were not served after the October 2024 discovery cut-off date. However, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff, as a self-represented litigant, faced significant challenges in navigating complex legal procedures. Plaintiff had to familiarize herself with the details of the case, review discovery responses previously provided by Defendant, and attempt to obtain new legal representation during this period.

Given the circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence. Moreover, Plaintiff’s efforts to serve discovery, pursue necessary depositions, and file the present motion demonstrate her intent to advance the case rather than cause unnecessary delay.

Furthermore, trial is currently set for March 10, 2025, and reopening discovery at this stage will not disrupt the trial schedule or prevent the case from proceeding as planned. Defendant has indicated that the majority of discovery has already been completed, and the remaining discovery is limited in scope. The time period before trial is sufficient for Plaintiff to conduct the requested discovery. However, on that same basis, the Court emphasizes that it will be reluctant to grant any further continuances of the trial or additional reopening of discovery beyond what is currently requested.  All pretrial deadlines will follow the present trial date.

Non-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’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.

                                                        __________________________

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court