Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV36498, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36498    Hearing Date: August 18, 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 Tonya Perry sued defendants Avery Schroeder, Robert T. Schroeder, and Dana L. Schroeder (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff moves to re-open discovery to permit the Plaintiff the opportunity to complete expert discovery.  Defendants oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS

Trial is currently set for October 21, 2022, which the Court set pursuant to the parties’ oral stipulation.  (See June 8, 2022 Minute Order.)  The fact discovery cutoff of March 22, 2022, and the expert discovery cutoff of April 6, 2022, based on the prior April 21, 2022 trial date, were to remain in effect.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2024.030, 2016.060; see June 8, 2022 Minute Order; April 21, 2022 Minute Order.)

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, Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery to depose Defendants’ expert witnesses.  According to counsel for Plaintiff, Blake E. Burtchaell (“Burtchaell”), the parties have not conducted any expert depositions after they exchanged expert designations on February 25, 2021.  (Declaration of Blake E. Burtchaell, ¶ 2.)  Burtchaell states that the parties had noticed the depositions of the other’s respective experts, but because Plaintiff’s experts were unavailable prior to the previous trial date of May 3, 2022, Defendants withdrew all previously set deposition dates and sought to exclude Plaintiff’s experts.  (Ibid.)  Burtchaell avers that his own trial calendar prevented him from appearing for trial in this case on May 3, 2022.  (Declaration of Blake E. Burtchaell, ¶ 3.)  According to Burtchaell, after the Court continued trial to the presently-scheduled date, Plaintiff again noticed the depositions of Defendants’ experts, but has been unable to conduct the depositions over Defendants’ objections.  (Ibid.)  Burtchaell acknowledges Plaintiff’s delay in conducting expert discovery, but contends that the parties can timely complete expert discovery in advance of the present trial date and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced should the parties not be allowed to do so.  (Declaration of Blake E. Burtchaell, ¶¶ 3, 5.)  Finally, Plaintiff agrees to cover Defendants’ expenses in connection with deposing Plaintiff’s experts to avoid any resulting financial prejudice to Defendants.

In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not shown good cause to re-open discovery, and has engaged in a pattern of dilatory conduct with respect to trial and discovery.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff had ample time to complete expert discovery before the cutoff, but fails to explain why she failed to do so.   Defendants also contend that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer before bringing the motion.

In light of the circumstances and taking into consideration the strong public policy favoring adjudication of cases on their merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for reopening discovery so the parties may conduct expert discovery prior to the October 21, 2022 trial date. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to reopen expert discovery and orders that all expert discovery shall close on October 7, 2022.  The Court further orders the parties to meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all expert discovery to obviate the need for any further continuance of the trial.   

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