Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC689550, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC689550    Hearing Date: December 13, 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

MOTIONS

Plaintiff Pamela De Somov (Plaintiff) moves to re-open discovery for the purpose of obtaining two internal investigations held by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as well as subpoenaing other relevant discovery.  Defendant Joseph Weston Niles (Defendant) opposes the motion.

Plaintiff also moves to compel production of protected law enforcement reports from LAPD.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

Trial is currently set for January 20, 2023, which the Court set based on an Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date on October 13, 2022.  The fact discovery cutoff was December 29, 2020, and the expert discovery cutoff was January 13, 2021.  (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, Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery because Defendant has not been deposed and has not answered interrogatories.  Further documents of two internal investigations held by the LAPD have not been obtained.  Plaintiff generally states that other relevant discovery needs to be subpoenaed. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery which was heard by the Court on July 7, 2021.  The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion at that time, finding her arguments, which are virtually identical to the ones Plaintiff’s advances in the instant motion, to be unpersuasive. 

The Court, again, finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate (i) justification for her lack of diligence in pursuing discovery prior to the original discovery cutoff dates and (ii) the necessity of now deposing Defendant and obtaining the LAPD investigation documents.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. And with fact discovery cutoff and the Court denying Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of protected law enforcement reports as untimely. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s rulings.