Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV05393, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05393    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Karl Deeb (“Deeb”), DHI Construction Inc. (“DHI”), Roy Debuque (“Debuque”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed Debuque with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On May 26, 2021, Deeb and DHI filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Debuque and Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity and partial equitable indemnity. On July 16, 2021, Debuque filed an answer. On July 7, 2022, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint filed by Deeb and DHI without prejudice. 

On May 28, 2021, Debuque filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Deeb, DHI, and Roes 1-20 for indemnity and contribution. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed Debuque’s cross-complaint without prejudice at Debuque’s request. 

On July 14, 2022, the Court granted the unopposed ex parte request of Deeb and DHI to continue the trial from August 10, 2022 to June 23, 2023, with discovery, law and motion, and all pre-trial deadlines to be based on the new trial date. 

On March 28, 2023, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue the trial from June 23, 2023 to November 21, 2023, with discovery and motion cut-off dates to be based on the new trial date. 

On November 6, 2023, the Court granted the ex parte application of Deeb and DHI to continue the trial from November 21, 2023 to January 24, 2024 and denied without prejudice their request to continue or reopen discovery. 

On November 7, 2023, Deeb and DHI (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to reopen discovery and continue the trial to be heard on January 17, 2024. On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 8, 2024, Moving Defendants filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 24, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Moving Defendants request that the Court continue the trial to February 28, 2024, and re-open discovery to trail the new trial date. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: 

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. 

“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides: 

“(a) 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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: 

“(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. 

“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), provides that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” 

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) 

DISCUSSION 

          Moving Defendants ask the Court to re-open discovery to permit them to complete expert witness depositions.  Plaintiff argues that the motion lacks merit because Moving Defendants have not been diligent. 

The Court has considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 and grants the motion to reopen discovery. 

Because of the Court’s impacted calendar, Moving Defendants could not schedule the hearing on their motion to reopen discovery until January 17, 2024, one week before the current trial date.  The Court continues the trial to February 28, 2024 to give the parties an opportunity to take advantage of the order reopening discovery. 

Discovery is reopened and will be based on the new February 28, 2024 trial date. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Karl Deeb and DHI Construction Inc. to reopen discovery for the purpose of completing expert witness depositions and to continue the trial.  The Court continues the trial from January 24, 2024 to February 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The Final Status Conference is continued to February 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Expert witness discovery and related dates are based on the new trial date. 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.