Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV10975, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10975 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Vela-Zuniga (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for negligence and statutory liability. The same day, the Court scheduled the trial for November 12, 2024.
On June 21, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel the depositions of Defendant’s person most qualified and Tierra Charles. The motions were set for hearing on November 12, 2024. Defendant opposed the motions. On November 12, 2024, the Court denied the motions, observing that the discovery motion cut-off date was closed and the last day to hear discovery motions was October 28, 2024.
On October 17, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial. The Court continued the trial from November 12, 2024 to December 4, 2024. The Court ruled that discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates would remain associated with the prior trial date unless the parties stipulated to reopen discovery or the Court granted a motion to reopen discovery.
On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery. The motion was set for hearing on December 9, 2024. On November 21, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. The Court continued the hearing to January 14, 2025. On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late reply.
On November 18, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial and discovery cut-off date or to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. The Court continued the trial from December 4, 2024 to January 27, 2025. The Court ruled that discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates would remain associated with the prior trial date unless the parties stipulated to reopen discovery or the Court granted a motion to reopen discovery.
On January 8, 2025, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial and discovery cut-off dates or, in the alternative, advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. The Court continued the trial from January 27, 2025 to April 3, 2025. The Court ordered that discovery would remain closed absent a stipulation to reopen discovery or an order granting a motion to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 3, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen discovery.
Defendant asks 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
A. Plaintiff’s contentions
On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff noticed Tierra Charles’s deposition for August 28, 2024. On July 12, 2024, Defendant objected to the deposition notice based on unavailability. Defendant did not provide alternative dates for the deposition.
On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Tierra Charles and Defendant’s person most qualified for October 11, 2024. On October 4, 2024, Defendant served an objection to the deposition date based on unavailability. Defendant did not provide available dates for the depositions.
On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel the depositions of Tierra Charles and Defendant’s person most qualified.
On November 4, 2024, Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that November 13, 2024 was available for a deposition.
On November 12, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel the depositions of Tierra Charles and Defendant’s person most qualified because the discovery motion cut-off date had passed.
B. Defendant’s contentions
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not been diligent in conducting discovery because Plaintiff did not notice any depositions until July 10, 2024, over one year after Plaintiff filed the complaint. On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff noticed only the deposition of the bus operator, Tierra Charles. On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified.
Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because the discovery motion cut-off date has passed.
C. Analysis and ruling
The
Court has considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section
2024.050, subdivision (b) and concludes that Plaintiff has acted with
sufficient diligence to support relief. It appears that even though Defendant objected in July and October 2024 to Plaintiff's deposition notices based on unavailability, Defendant did not provide an alternative deposition date until November 4, 2024.
The discovery motion cut-off date does not bar Plaintiff’s motion to
reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision
(a).
The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion. Discovery and related motion cut-off dates will be based on the April 3, 2025 trial date.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Maria Vela-Zuniga’s motion to reopen discovery. Discovery and related motion cut-off dates will be based on the April 3, 2025 trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.