Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20GDCV00072, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00072    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 19, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery;

Motion to Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiff Queens Land Builder, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants Cal Garden, LLC and Ming Gu

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS ARE DENIED.

            PLAINTIFF to notice. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers and oppositions.

BACKGROUND

            This is a construction defect case arising out of the construction of condominium complex and its subterranean garage. The owners of a property adjoining the complex claim that the construction caused substantial subsidence and settlement issues on its property. The action involves several contractors/sub-contractors, complaints, and cross-complaints.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 2024.20(a) provides, “[e]xcept 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.”

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Queens Land Builder, Inc. moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories and to compel depositions. Trial in this matter is set for October 24, 2022. These motions were filed on October 10, 2022 and are set for hearing on October 19, 2022, five days before trial. The motions were filed and are set to be heard after the discovery motion cut-off. Plaintiff did not ask the Court to reopen discovery.

Though the first amended cross-complaint was filed last month, it did not add allegations. It removed them. The allegations that remain were present in the original cross-complaint. Plaintiff had at least a year to conduct discovery on these issues. Additionally, Plaintiff had seen the FACC when it was attached to a settlement of a related case months prior to its filing. Plaintiff has failed to establish that this discovery is necessary now.

Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.