I. BACKGROUND 

On July 27, 2020, plaintiff Duran Bowie (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Antonio Regla and Antonio's Trucking, Inc. for injuries arising from a motor vehicle incident. The trial date is currently set for September 17, 2024.  

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of expert discovery to track with the current trial date. Defendant Antonio Regla dba Antonio Trucking, erroneously sued and served as Antonio Regla, and Antonio's Trucking, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiff avers trial was originally scheduled for June 6, 2023 and that designation fo expert witnesses were due by April 18, 2023. Plaintiff requests leave to designate his medical treating doctors as expert witnesses, which was not disclosed previously because Plaintiff was in pro per at the time defense counsel served the demand for CCP section 2034 Designation of Experts by email. Plaintiff contends there is enough time for the designation and depositions of his experts without needing to continue the current trial date. Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced if discovery is not re-opened to allow him to designate his experts to support his claim for damages.  

Defendants argue the motion is a ruse to completely reopen expert discovery, and that it will force Defendants to conduct the depositions of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses and re-evaluate strategy for trial again. Defendants contend Plaintiff had represented himself for nearly three years, and that there is no justification to re-open discovery due to Plaintiff’s lack of diligence to designate expert witnesses and conduct expert discovery prior to the cut-off deadlines. 

Plaintiff reiterates that the request is to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting expert discovery, and that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff because it will not disturb the current trial date. 

II. MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

CCP § 2024.050 provides, in relevant part: 

“(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.” 

The purpose of California’s discovery state is, among other things, “to assist the parties and the trier of fact in ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and to safeguard against surprise.” (Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 1294.) Here, the Court finds sufficient justification to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of expert discovery. Plaintiff’s experts are necessary for him to attempt to prove his damages, and although there may be some measure of lack of diligence, the result of granting Plaintiff’s request would not interfere with the trial calendar. Defendants contend they will be prejudiced, because they will need to expend a large amount of time and resources to defend this matter through the necessity of conducting depositions of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses. However, policy favors the disposition of cases on their merits, and the balancing factors here weigh in favor of reopening discovery.  

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to designate his experts and for expert discovery only. Expert discovery is re-opened to track with the current trial date of September 17, 2024.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 25th day of March 2024