Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV09555, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09555    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff served his designation of expert witnesses and identified both Vibhay Prasad (“Dr. Prasad”) and Dr. Daniel Franc (“Dr. Franc”) as non-retained experts who served as Plaintiff’s treating physicians. On January 10, 2025, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney, substituting in new defense counsel. On March 4, 2025, Defendant served deposition notices and subpoenas for the depositions of Dr. Prasad and Dr. Franc, setting both for March 18, 2025. Plaintiff objected to both notices based on the unavailability of the deponents.

Expert discovery closed on March 19, 2025, based on the prior trial date of April 3, 2025. On March 21, 2025, Defendant served amended deposition notices for Dr. Prasad and Dr. Franc, setting both for April 1, 2025—after the expert discovery cut-off. Defendant now moves the Court to reopen expert discovery, requesting that the expert discovery cut-off be extended to May 20, 2025, consistent with the continued trial date of June 4, 2025.
Legal Standard

CCP 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(a).)

“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).)¿ 

A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP 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(a).) 

Discussion

Defendant’s request to reset the expert cut-off to May 20, 2025, to follow the continued trial date, is now moot as that date has already passed.

Even if not moot, the motion is problematic, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.  On January 10, 2025, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney, bringing in new defense counsel. On March 4, 2025, Defendant served deposition notices and subpoenas for the depositions of Dr. Prasad and Dr. Franc, setting both for March 18, 2025. Although Defendant argues that it promptly sought to depose Plaintiff’s treating doctors and designated experts, nearly two months passed between the substitution of counsel and the issuance of the deposition notices, with no explanation provided for the delay. Moreover, the depositions were scheduled for the final day before the expert discovery cut-off, meaning that any scheduling issues would require the depositions to occur after the discovery cut-off.  Because expert discovery is by nature expedited and time-sensitive, defense counsel should have appreciated the urgency to notice and complete expert depositions promptly. Defendant failed to do so and has not provided any justification for this delay.

Additionally, Defendant did not file the present motion until more than one month after the expiration of the expert discovery deadline.  Defendant also made no effort to shorten time in light of the passage of the discovery cut-off.

For all of the above reasons, the motion is denied.

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.