Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV36112, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 21STCV36112 Hearing Date: June 12, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff Bernadette Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dmitry Bochin (“Bochin”), National Cement Company, Inc., and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On June 29, 2022, Defendant National Ready Mixed Concrete Co. (incorrectly named and served as National Cement Company, Inc.) (“Ready Mixed”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1-10 for negligence and motor vehicle tort.
On July 12, 2022, Bochin filed an answer to the complaint.
On March 21, 2023, the clerk entered Plaintiff’s default on Ready Mixed’s cross-complaint.
On September 13, 2023, the Court dismissed Ready Mixed’s cross-complaint with prejudice at its request.
On April 22, 2024, the Court granted in part the unopposed motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidence and monetary sanctions filed by Ready Mixed and Bochin. The Court ordered that Plaintiff may not present evidence of any medical treatment or medical bills which Plaintiff did not disclose to Ready Mixed and Bochin in discovery responses by February 16, 2024. The Court also ordered Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Ready Mixed and Bochin $490.00 in sanctions by May 21, 2024.
On August 7, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial. The Court continued the trial from August 12, 2024 to September 30, 2024, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On September 30, 2024, the Court continued the trial from September 30, 2024 to March 6, 2025 based on the parties’ stipulation. The stipulation specified that discovery deadlines remained closed and the parties did not anticipate seeking any further trial continuances.
On February 28, 2025, the Court continued the trial from March 6, 2025 to November 18, 2025 based on the parties’ stipulation. The stipulation stated: “Non-expert discovery remains closed. Expert discovery deadlines will append to the new trial date.”
On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery. The motion was set for hearing on June 12, 2025. On May 30, 2025, Ready Mixed and Bochin (“Defendants”) filed an opposition.
Trial is currently set for November 10, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen fact discovery for a limited purpose.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (b) provides:
“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, subd. (b).)
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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen fact discovery “for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff . . . to supplement a medical bill that was inadvertently left out of discovery . . . .” (Motion p. 2.) Plaintiff states that he “needs this bill to come in on the question of damages.” (Motion pp. 2-3.) Although Plaintiff produced the records for a November 10, 2023 medical procedure to Defendants, “the bill for the surgery center, was inadvertently left out of discovery.” (Motion p. 2.)
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that on April 22, 2024, the Court granted in part their unopposed motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidence and monetary sanctions and ordered that Plaintiff may not present evidence of any medical treatment or medical bills which Plaintiff did not disclose to Defendants in discovery responses by February 16, 2024.
The Court has considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, as well as the Court’s April 22, 2024 order. The Court exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion to reopen fact discovery for the limited purpose of discovery of the medical bill for Plaintiff’s November 10, 2023 procedure.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Bernadette Garcia’s motion to reopen fact discovery for the limited purpose of discovery of the medical bill for Plaintiff’s November 10, 2023 procedure.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.