Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2022-00018260-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00018260-CU-BT-CTL FATE THERAPEUTICS INC VS SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Shoreline Biosciences, Inc., Kleanthis G. Xanthopoulos, Steven Holtzman, and William Sandborn's Motion to Enforce Fact Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED.

Discovery has gone on long enough and nothing further will be ordered. At issue is whether the fact discovery cutoff applies to limit the hearing of discovery motions related to allegedly deleted emails of Steve Holtzman, requests for production directed at Patera Design, LLC, and the deposition of Marios Fotiadis. Fate has repeatedly sought additional discovery and this court has stated its concern that more discovery would simply lead to more discovery without end. On March, 1, 2024, for example, Fate's discovery hopes were pinned on 'discreet issues' that 'turn[ed] on Shaw and Kite.' (ROA 1449, Acker Decl., Ex. E [March 1, 2024 hearing transcript], pp. 23:28-24:2.) Now, several additional matters are sought regarding information that Fate claims is just as imperative. The court is not confident that were it to hear these motions or grant leave to conduct additional fact discovery that further discovery requests would not materialize. Whether any prior discovery ordered and obtained proved useful for Fate will likely be decided during the summary judgment proceedings and at trial. But nothing further is required by statute or permitted by this court with respect to fact discovery.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a), 'any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have the motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action.' '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(b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows discovery to be reopened taking into consideration 'any matter relevant to the leave requested, including but not limited to' the necessity and reasons for such discovery, the diligence of the party seeking discovery, and any likelihood the discovery would further delay proceedings.

The 15th or 30th days before the date initially set for trial in this case have long since passed and no party was or is statutorily entitled to further discovery proceedings absent order of the court. To that end, the discovery cutoff was extended at least three times. The understanding that the cutoff applied to all fact discovery and discovery motion practice was reflected in the orders at ROAs 320 and 884. (See also ROA 1449, Acker Decl., Ex. A [February 10, 2023 Order stating that the trial would commence on January 19, 2024 and that 'All Motions and Discovery are to be completed 12/22/2023']; Ex. B [November 9, 2023 Order continuing the trial to July 2024 but only extending the discovery and motion cut off by approximately two months and providing that 'All Motions and Discovery are to be completed 3/01/2024.']; Ex. D [Order extending the date from March 1, 2024 to May 3, 2024 and stating that '[t]here will be no further extensions absent a stipulation of the parties'].) The court rejects the notion Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135702  4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FATE THERAPEUTICS INC VS SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES INC  37-2022-00018260-CU-BT-CTL that the parties were not on notice that no further discovery or discovery motion practice was to continue past the cutoff. Putting aside that point, the parties acknowledge, even under the referee's most recent recommendations, that leave of court would be required to conduct additional fact discovery. That leave is denied.

The court is aware that it would be unfair to set a cutoff and then allow parties to fail to comply with various orders, using the cutoff as a shield. That is, at least in part, why Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 exists to allow the court to consider the specific circumstances of the case, and if warranted, extend the time to complete certain discovery.

In considering the entire record, including the orders and transcripts attached to the motion papers, Fate has not met its burden in demonstrating that the cut off should be extended, leave granted to conduct particular fact discovery, or otherwise have its motions heard. The post-cutoff referee recommendations do not opine on whether the cutoff should actually be extended to allow the discovery at issue and the court does not find reason to do so. (E.g., ROA 1468, Linhardt Decl., Exs. H, G.) As for compliance with prior referee orders related to the Holtzman emails, even assuming the motion was actually to compel compliance and not essentially a request for new discovery, Fate had everything it needed to timely file such a motion well in advance of the May 3, 2024 cutoff date. (See ROA 1476, Ex. M [February 24, 2024 referee hearing transcript], pp. 14-15 [discussing the allegedly deleted Holtzman emails and need for proceedings to resolve those deletions].) Moreover, considering the extensive discovery proceedings in this case, the court is unpersuaded of the necessity of the additional discovery.

Fact discovery and related discovery motion practice is now closed absent a stipulation of the parties.

The referee continues to have the authority to rule on any issues related to expert discovery and motions to seal.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135702  4