Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV10489, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10489    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Frank Alonso (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Nomi Stolzenberg and David Myers (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle incident.  Defendant Nomi Stolzenberg (Stolzenberg) moves to reopen discovery to investigate changes or updates to Plaintiff’s injuries or medical treatment since the discovery cutoff date in May of 2022.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Stolzenberg replies.

ANALYSIS

Trial is currently set for February 1, 2023.  All fact and expert discovery remained closed based on the previous trial date scheduled in June of 2022.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2024.030, 2016.060.)

In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Here, Stolzenberg seeks to reopen discovery to investigate what medical services/treatment Plaintiff has received since the discovery cut-off date in this matter.  Stolzenberg argues that because it has been in excess of eight months since the initial discovery cut-off date, Stolzenberg needs to reopen discovery in order to avoid unfair surprise and ascertain whether Plaintiff has undergone any further treatment, received any further medical services, been provided any different diagnosis or prognosis, incurred further medical expenses.  (Declaration of Craig A. Humphrey, ¶ 3.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Stolzenberg has failed to participate in the discovery process throughout the duration of litigating the instant case.  Plaintiff’s counsel, Sevan I. Movesesian (Counsel), claims that Stolzenberg has not conducted any written discovery seeking information regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment thus far.  (Declaration of Sevan I. Movesisian, ¶ 4.)  Aside from conducting a deposition and physical examination of Plaintiff, Stolzenberg has never made any further discovery requests until now.  (Declaration of Sevan I. Movesisian, ¶ 9.) 

In reply, Stolzenberg argues that she has not conducted any discovery within the past seven months because discovery has been cut-off since June.  However, Stolzenberg fails to directly rebut Plaintiff’s claim that she has not engaged in any written or expert discovery throughout the entire duration of litigation, aside from a deposition and medical examination.  Despite never having propounded similar discovery before the discovery cut-off date, Stolzenberg now, less than two months from trial, wishes to reopen discovery “to allow the Defendant to obtain the medical records, reports, and/or documents . . . and to depose any new and additional expert.”  (See Declaration of Craig A. Humphrey, ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that the evidence establishes a lack of diligence by Stolzenberg in completing discovery before the discovery cutoff date in June.  As such, Stolzenberg has not shown good cause for reopening discovery. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Stolzenberg’s motion to reopen discovery.  Stolzenberg shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.