Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 20STCV32803 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV32803, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 20STCV32803 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: SEC

MARIA GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ v. JAN U. CHOE, et al.,

CASE NO.: 20STCV32803

HEARING: 04/27/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Maria Hernandez’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is CONTINUED to 10:30 a.m. on May 11, 2023 in Dept. SE-C to allow the Parties to meet and confer in good faith.

Moving party(s) to give notice.

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff Maria Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Jan U. Choe, Patty Choe Tang, and Seng Tang (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen discovery. Defendants oppose the Motion, and Plaintiff filed a Reply.

Parties are entitled to complete discovery on or before the 30th day before the date initially set for trial and to have discovery motions heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for trial. (CCP § 2024.020(a).) A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020(b).)

On motion of a party, the court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (CCP § 2024.050(a).) Such motions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Ibid.) The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. (CCP § 2024.050(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; and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(a) because she failed to meet and confer with Defendant prior to filing this Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel states a meet and confer email was sent to Defendants’ counsel on February 1, 2023. (Saroian Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendants’ counsel and his staff deny receiving any such email. (Yerzinkyan, Morkes, and Balingit Declarations.) The court need not determine whether the email was actually sent because even if it was, the email does not constitute a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution” of the issue. (CCP § 2016.040.) The email does not indicate Plaintiff would be filing a motion to reopen discovery the next day. Plaintiff did not follow-up with a telephone call. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that “meeting and conferring would be futile” because Defendants’ counsel objected to reopening discovery at the Final Status Conference on February 1, 2023. (Saroian Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendants’ objection at the February 1 Status Conference does not eliminate Plaintiff’s requirement to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the instant Motion. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer in good faith to see if they can resolve this dispute informally.

The Court notes that when this Motion was filed it was in the Spring Street Courthouse in Department 31 and trial was scheduled for June 30, 2023. This case has since been transferred to this Court, and trial has been vacated, and a trial date will not be scheduled until May 17, 2023. In addition, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is no longer on calendar. The Court encourages the Parties to consider that the previously scheduled trial date is no longer operative, and Defendants’ concern with the upcoming June 30 trial date is now a non-issue.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is CONTINUED to 10:30 a.m. on May 11, 2023 in Dept. SE-C to allow the Parties to meet and confer in good faith.