Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19STCV29783, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19STCV29783 Hearing Date: February 14, 2023 Dept: A
19STCV29783
Ignacio Escalante v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The First Amended
Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s civil rights while
searching Plaintiff without probable cause and with use of unreasonable force. The
remaining claims are for (1) violation of Civ. Code, § 52.1 (Bane Act), (2)
negligence, (3) assault, and (4) battery, and (7) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
II. ARGUMENTS
Defendant,
County of Los Angeles (“County”), moves to reopen discovery to obtain
Plaintiff’s current medical records. On January 10, 2023, the County obtained a
declaration from Plaintiff given in Case No. 20STCV03156 Escalante v. Canizales
wherein Plaintiff declared that he recovered from injuries sustained in this
action within nine months contrary to what Plaintiff reported at the defense
medical examination in this case. Discovery is necessary to prevent surprise.
In
opposition, Plaintiff contends the County’s reason for reopening discovery is
false and additional discovery is unnecessary. Limiting discovery requested by
County would bar Plaintiff from conducting rebuttal discovery and result in
prejudice. County can use the declaration at trial for impeachment purposes.
III. LEGAL
STANDARDS
The Court has
discretion to grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been
set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050 subd (a)). Among the factors to be considered in granting relief are the
diligence or lack of diligence in seeking discovery, the necessity for the
discovery, the likelihood that permitting discovery will prevent the case from
going to trial, and resulting prejudice to the opposing party, among other
things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050 subd. (b).
On September 13, 2022,
the parties stipulated to a trial date of March 1, 2023, and agreed that fact
discovery shall be closed. Stip. and Ord. 9/13/22. The parties
also agreed that expert discovery would end on February 13, 2023. Defendant has
not shown good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining
current medical records since permitting discovery will potentially affect the
expert opinions that have already been rendered. There is a potential for increased
costs and a delay in trial going forward as stipulated if expert testimony will
have to be reconsidered based on new discovery. The complaint was filed on August
22, 2019, and is over three years old.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s
motion is DENIED.