Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV20201, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20201    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    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 Reyna Ventura (Plaintiff) sued Defendant La Luna Lavanderia, Inc. (Defendant) based on a slip and fall incident.  Plaintiff moves for a protective order precluding Defendant from deposing Kaiser Permanente’s person most knowledgeable (PMK).  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (b); 2033.080, subd. (b).)   The protective order may include direction that the subject discovery request need not be answered.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (b)(1); 2033.080, subd. (b)(1).)  A party seeking a protective order must show good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) 

            Plaintiff contends the Court must grant a protective order precluding Defendant from deposing Kaiser Permanente’s PMK because Defendant scheduled the subject deposition after the discovery cutoff date.  In opposition, Defendant notes the Court has discretion to grant leave to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.050 and argues it should do so here based on Plaintiff’s alleged withholding of pertinent information regarding Plaintiff’s future medical treatment.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: “Except 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  “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).)   

Here, the discovery and motion cutoff dates remain based on the initial trial date of December 5, 2022.  (See November 17, 2022 Stipulation.)  In its November 17, 2022 order, pursuant to the stipulation submitted by Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court continued the trial from December 5, 2022 to April 24, 2023.  Though the Court reserved Defendant’s right to bring a motion to reopen discovery, it did not continue the discovery cutoff date in accordance with the new trial date.  (See November 17, 2022 Stipulation.). Accordingly, the non-expert discovery cut-off date remains November 5, 2022, and Defendant did not schedule the subject deposition until November 11, 2022.  The Court notes that Defendant has scheduled hearing for the Court to hear its motion to reopen discovery on March 1, 2023.  However, that motion has not yet been heard or granted.  As Defendant has not yet sought leave of Court to propound the new discovery on the Kaiser Permanente PMK after the discovery cut-off date, the Court finds Defendant’s attempt to schedule the subject deposition to be improper and grants Plaintiff’s protective order.

Both parties seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court declines to impose sanctions on either party as it finds an award of sanctions to either party to be unjust in this instance.  (Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.030, subdivision (a).)  The Court finds the parties had a good faith dispute as to the propriety of the subject deposition, and neither party has acted in bad faith.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order precluding Defendant from taking deposition of Kaiser Permanente’s Person Most Knowledgeable without an order from the Court reopening discovery.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.