Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC686533, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC686533    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 Yeni Alvarez Discovery (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Jean Chang (Defendant) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff moves to re-open expert discovery to permit the Plaintiff the opportunity to designate experts and allow the parties to take the depositions of experts.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

Preliminarily the Court notes that Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion within the memorandum of points and authorities.  However, Plaintiff failed to include the request for monetary sanctions in the notice of motion.  As such, the Court finds Plaintiff has not given proper notice of the  request for monetary sanctions and denies the request as procedurally defective. 

ANALYSIS

Trial is currently set for January 23, 2023, which the Court set pursuant to an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Continue Trial and Reopen Discovery as to Expert Designation.  (See October 3, 2022 Minute Order.)  The fact discovery cutoff and the expert discovery cutoff dates, based on the prior October 21, 2022 trial date, were to remain in effect.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2024.030, 2016.060; see October 3, 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 in order to designate a medical experts who can testify to Plaintiff’s injuries as well as allow parties to take depositions of said experts.  Plaintiff advances the declaration of Nicholas S. Nassiff, Plaintiff’s counsel (Counsel).  According to Counsel, Counsel was informed on August 10, 2022, that Plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Bal Rajagopalan, had passed away on June 21, 2022.  (See Declaration of Nicholas S. Nassiff, ¶ 4.)  Counsel was then unable to find a suitable expert to replace the deceased expert by the deadline to designate experts, September 1, 2022.  (See Declaration of Nicholas S. Nassiff, ¶¶ 7-10

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not shown good cause to re-open discovery.  First, Defendant contends that a retained medical expert is not necessary in this case as Plaintiff can rely on her medical treating providers to testify to her injuries.  Defendant further claims that Plaintiff has exhibited nothing but neglect towards the discovery process, as Plaintiff has failed to respond to three sets of supplemental discovery, failed to designate any witnesses whatsoever in the case, and has failed to notice the depositions of Defendant’s designated experts.  Finally, Defendant attests that allowing the re-opening of expert discovery would further delay the January 23, 2023 trial date, since designating Plaintiff experts, allowing Defendant to respond to Plaintiff expert designations with their own designations, and deposing said experts will require more time than the 34 days between the hearing date for this motion and the trial date in late January.

In reply, Plaintiff states that the reason they did not designate Plaintiff’s treating medical providers as experts is because Plaintiff has nine treating physicians and it would be unwieldly for them all to testify about Plaintiff’s injuries.  Instead, Plaintiff aims to designate one medical expert who can testify as to Plaintiff’s injuries and treatment as a whole.  Next Plaintiff argues that any alleged neglect of the discovery process on Plaintiff’s part is not relevant to the analysis here as Plaintiff is only requesting a reopening of expert discovery to which Plaintiff has been diligent and only needs an extension due to the unexpected death of Plaintiff’s selected expert.  Finally, Plaintiff argues that the allowance of an expert designation and thus the adjudication of the case on the merits outweighs the inconvenience of a two or three month trial delay.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the circumstances and taking into consideration the strong public policy favoring adjudication of cases on the merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for reopening discovery on a limited basis.  Therefore, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to reopen expert discovery as follows:

• On or before January 3, 2023, Plaintiff shall designate an orthopedic specialist as an expert witness; and

• On or before January 13, 2023, the parties shall schedule and complete the deposition of said orthopedic specialist.

All other orders of the Court shall remain in effect.  Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.