Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV40919, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40919    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

JERRY LEGGETT, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

CITY OF COMPTON, ET AL.,  

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 19STCV40919 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

November 14, 2023 

 

I. Background  

On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff Jerry Leggett (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Compton (“City”) for damages arising from a trip and fall over a hole on the sidewalk.  

On September 9, 2022, the City filed a cross-complaint against Compton Commercial Redevelopment Company (“CCRC”). On November 8, 2022, CCRC filed its Answer to the City’s cross-complaint.  

On November 10, 2022, CCRC filed its cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 20, and later filed an amendment to cross-complaint naming the City as Roe 1 on January 17, 2023. The City filed its Answer to CCRC’s cross-complaint on January 19, 2023.  

CCRC, at this time, moves to reopen discovery and motion cut-off dates to follow the current trial date of April 18, 2024. The request to reopen discovery is limited between CCRC and the City only. CRCC also requests monetary sanctions.  

The City opposes the motion, and CCRC filed a reply.    

 

  1. Moving Argument 

CRCC asserts it was brought into the action after the discovery cut-off date. CRCC argues that nearly three years after Plaintiff filed his complaint, the City filed and served a cross-complaint on CCRC asserting causes of action for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. CRCC contends the City has stonewalled every attempt by CRCC to obtain information informally and formally, and that the City rejected propounded written discovery on the grounds that discovery was closed. Further, CRCC argues the City has refused to meet and confer regarding reopening discovery between the City and CRCC to allow CCRC to conduct discovery and obtain information to defend itself prior to trial. 

  1. Opposing Argument 

The City argues CRCC could have moved to reopen discovery months ago and serve written discovery on the City in June 2023. The City argues CRCC delayed in moving to reopen discovery, and that reopening discovery will be prejudicial by further delaying trial. The City further contends that CCRC sent a single email to meet and confer about reopening discovery in this matter nearly three months after it served written discovery, when discovery had already closed.  

 

  1. Reply Argument 

CRCC avers it seeks to reopen discovery as between CRCC and the City only, and that CRCC made a good faith attempt to meet and confer with the City since as early as October 2022 to no avail, necessitating this motion. CRCC argues it will be prejudiced if it is unable to investigate and conduct discovery.     

 

II. Motion to Reopen Discovery 

CCP § 2024.050 states: 

 

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

 

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. 

 

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. 

 

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. 

 

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. 

 

CRCC asserts it was brought in as a cross-defendant three years after the filing of the complaint, when discovery was already closed. Prior to CRCC’s appearance in the matter, the trial date was continued four times, with all discovery and motion-related cut-off dates ultimately following a September 6, 2022 trial date (Notice of Ruling, Feb. 10, 2022), and expert discovery following a March 16, 2023 trial date (Min. Order, Aug. 23, 2022).   

On February 2, 2023, CRCC filed an ex parte application to continue trial and related dates, which was granted in part. The Court continued the trial date to August 23, 2023, but kept discovery deadlines the same, and requested that the parties meet and confer about continuing the discovery deadlines and attempt to reach a stipulation; if the parties cannot stipulate, then a noticed motion to continue trial dates and related dates may be filed. (Min. Order, Feb. 3, 2023.) Thereafter, the trial date was continued for the last time to April 18, 2024, and the Court noted no further continuances given the age of the case. (Min. Order, June 22, 2023.) 

Clearly, the parties did not come to a stipulation regarding discovery as requested by the Court. It is of no fault by CRCC that it was brought into the action three years after the action was filed, or that the discovery cut-off date had long passed at the time it appeared in the action. The City disputes the diligence of CRCC seeking to reopen discovery and seeking to meet and confer with the City. However, the Court finds no prejudice in re-opening discovery as between CRCC and the City only, especially as CRCC does not seek to interfere with the current trial date, given the age of the case.  

In weighing the relevant factors, CRCC demonstrates discovery is necessary to fully prepare for trial and ascertain the City’s claims against it.  Furthermore, given trial is currently set for April 18, 2024, and CRCC seeks to reopen discovery following the current trial date, there is no apparent prejudice in terms of delaying trial or any apparent prejudice to the City allowing discovery to be reopened.  

Accordingly, CRCC’s request to reopen discovery is GRANTED as between CRCC and the City only. Any discovery and motion cut-off dates between CRCC and the City is to be based on the April 18, 2024 trial date. Further, CRCC’s request for monetary sanctions is denied, as the necessity of the motion was reasonably contemplated by way Court’s February 3, 2023 Order.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

C61906 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the Court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 13th day of November 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court