TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.

Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. to give notice.

REASONING

Meet and Confer

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. advance a declaration outlining their meet-and-confer efforts in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2016.040 and 2024.050, subdivision (a). 

Here, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.’s counsel of record, Jordan S. Tabak avers he reached out to Plaintiff Hasid’s counsel via email on December 5, 2023 regarding its request to reopen discovery. (Tabak Decl., ¶ 13.) Tabak further avers that Plaintiff Hasid’s counsel never responded. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Therefore, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. have sufficiently met-and-conferred prior to bringing forth this instant motion. 

Motion to Reopen Discovery

“On 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).)

In exercising its discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen discovery, the Court must consider any factors relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to:

“(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, subd. (b).)

Analysis

Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. move to reopen discovery and for permission to take a subsequent deposition of Plaintiff Avital Hasid. Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. contend the deposition is narrowly tailored for the purposes of getting an update from Plaintiff Avital Hasid pertaining to her compensatory damages, including, but not limited to her medical and physical condition and activities, her living situation, and her daily routine and experiences since the completion of her first deposition in May 2019. Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. further contend per Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.610, subdivision (b), their permitted to take subsequent depositions of natural persons when the circumstances warrant the additional testimony. Moreover, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue good cause exists for the Court to allow the subsequent deposition and the circumstances that support a finding of good cause demonstrate the necessity and reasons for the requested discovery. 

Specifically, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue Plaintiff Hasid suffered traumatic brain injury (“TBI’) from this accident and the impact of the TBI on her life will be at the forefront of this trial. Furthermore, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. contend Plaintiff Hasid has designated dozens of non-retained medical experts, several of whom Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. expects to be called to testify at trial to provide further evidence on these claimed damages. Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. assert without the opportunity to see how Plaintiff Hasid is doing with her TBI today and how she has been doing over the past four and half years, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. will be going into trial with a significant blind spot. In addition, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue Plaintiff Hasid’s condition from 2018-2019 is likely not the same as her condition today and her day-to-day cannot be gleaned from medical records. 

Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. also argue the request is appropriate under the circumstances because the deposition would be limited as discussed above. Furthermore, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. contend they do not anticipate a follow-up deposition will take more than two (2) hours. Additionally, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. assert they have not lacked in diligence in seeking this discovery Plaintiff Hasid’s initial deposition occurred over three sessions and occurred around the first two trial settings in 2018 and 2019, both of which were continued by stipulation. Subsequently, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. contend the pandemic hit and trial settings post-COVID were also continued on the part of both parties. Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. further contend no new trial date has been set, one of Plaintiff Hasid’s experts remains to be deposed, and Plaintiff Hasid has requested depositions of five of their designated experts. Lastly, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue Plaintiff Hasid’s reasons for objecting to a subsequent deposition should not carry the day because Plaintiff Hasid was deposed once over a span of three shorter sessions as opposed to one lengthy one to which she was only under oath for a total of a little over six hours. 

In opposition, Plaintiff Hasid argues Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.’s motion is untimely because it is sought more than a year after discovery has closed. Furthermore, Plaintiff Hasid contends Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. reasons for deposing her again do not justify the necessity because there is no reason after almost nine years after her TBI diagnosis, she is expected to have any improved symptoms. Plaintiff Hasid also argues based upon her prognosis and injuries, it is unimaginable what Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.  can possibly obtain from her that will be admissible at trial. Moreover, Plaintiff Hasid argues Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. will not be placed in a blind spot at trial since Plaintiff is not claiming that she suffered any additional injuries which she has not previously stated and/or which has not been identified in her experts’ reports and/or testimonies. 

Plaintiff Hasid contends f Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. do not believe she requires a $21-31 million life care plan for future needs or that she permanent and stationary, those matters can be addressed at the time of trial through presentation of evidence and/or opposing testimony. Likewise, Plaintiff Hasid argues Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. have refused to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s request for production and interrogatories on the basis that fact discovery has been closed since December 31, 2022. Similarly, Plaintiff Hasid argues this action was not deemed long cause or stayed until September 6, 2023, so Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. had over a year to bring their motion before the previously scheduled trial date, but they did not do so. Additionally, Plaintiff Hasid asserts there is a five year limitation that is set for expire on June 3, 2024, so it will further delay her ability to bring this case to trial by June 3, 2024. Finally, Plaintiff Hasid contends no good cause exists because she has already been deposed three times. Plaintiff Hasid also contends Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.’s counsels expressly indicated they would not bring her back for another deposition while she expressed it hurts her mind. Plaintiff Hasid further argues Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. have used this motion as an excuse not to participate in finalizing the exhibits and witnesses lists for long cause submission further delaying this case to Plaintiff Hasid’s detriment. 

In reply, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue Plaintiff Hasid has not come forward with evidenc to support her condition medically or otherwise has not changed since May 2019. Furthermore, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. contend if Plaintiff Hasid is incapable of offering reliable testimony they should be afforded the opportunity to discover that. Lastly, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. argue there has not been and will not be a delay in this matter proceeding to trial because of this instant motion and a short, update deposition of Plaintiff Hasid. 

Although Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. set forth some convincing reasons for reopening discovery, the Court finds that there was a lack of due diligence in seeking the updated deposition or hearing on this motion earlier. Plaintiff Hasid was deposed back in 2019, and Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. did not seek this relief in 2022 or earlier in 2023. Furthermore, there is a likelihood that permitting the discovery would interfere with the trial calendar and this case is set to expire June 3, 2024, which just shy of being four months away. 

Accordingly, Defendants Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.