Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20STCV16954, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16954    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: R

At a minimum, the trial conflict seems like it is enough.  The court moved the trial date sua sponte.  Had the court set the trial date at a hearing, the court could hold counsel to it—object when the trial is set, not shortly before trial.  But here, it was done recently and it was done without consultation with counsel.

But moving the trial is not the same as extending the cut off or moving the MSJ.  As to that, the court is aware of Amazon’s argument that this information goes to people who contacted Amazon with concerns after plaintiff’s injury.  If that is the case, the court cannot see how it is relevant to anything currently before the court.  They cannot provide evidence that Amazon was aware of anything at the time plaintiff purchased the wand, and it is not appropriate to impose punitive damages based on conduct that post-dates the tort.  On the other hand, if that is not correct and these people did make complaints before plaintiff bought the wand, the court might need to consider the question.  It could in theory go to ratification, but that may be hard.

In addition, even if the witnesses post-dated the purchase, their information might still be pertinent to the claim against Onyx.  There, it is partially knowledge, but the issue might also go to the cause of the problem—was it a design problem, for example.  Same regarding ratification.

All of that said, the court notes that plaintiff opposed a lengthy continuance last Spring saying that it was ready to go to trial on the earlier date.  Now, however, plaintiff needs to conduct more discovery.  The court will inquire as to that apparent inconsistency.

Overall, given that the court has to continue the trial anyway (most likely), the court is more likely to move the MSJ dates as well.  (The court is not convinced they have to be heard at the same time, but the court is not convinced that they don’t.)  Whether the MSJ will be continued to allow for additional discovery is an issue that will be decided at the MSJ hearing.  The court is not at present convinced that such will be required, but the court has not come to a firm conclusion.

On the broader discovery issue, the court’s view would be that at most the cut-off should be continued for discovery already “on the table,” meaning discovery that has already been propounded.  That would include the PMK deposition.  Of course, the discovery window has not fully closed; expert discovery can still go forward assuming that the exchanges were made, and there is still a smidge of room for written discovery.  There is also some room for depositions.  But what the court does not want to do is to continue the case for some period and have one side or the other view it as open season to propound a broadside of new discovery.

The court is sorry that Onyx is of the view that the court has been too lax with plaintiff.  The court sees it differently.  The court believes that until now the dispositive motions have been pleading motions.  Defendants can still bring the motions, but they must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true.  The court was willing to assume the truth of the allegations for pleading purposes—as it must.  As to discovery, the court was inclined to allow plaintiff to conduct discovery to adduce the evidence needed to make the case.  On summary judgment, if plaintiff has no evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact, then plaintiff will lose the motion.  If plaintiff does have that evidence, then the question is for the jury.  That is just how the rules work.  (Whether this is really like the Grimshaw case remains to be seen.  The court drew the analogy not to say that Onyx or Amazon were in Ford’s position there, but rather to illustrate the difference from a legal perspective between a freak one-time accident and a defect about which the defendant becomes aware and does nothing.  Which one this is will be tested precisely by discovery.