Superior Court of California¿ 

County of Los Angeles¿ 

Department 78¿ 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff 608 Mateo, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its First Amended Complaint against defendants Arts District Patients Collective, Inc. (“ADPC”), James Shaw, Ryan Jennemann, THC Design, THC Design, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 for breach of written contract and breach of written guaranty arising from the leasing of the premises commonly known as 608 S. Mateo Street and 609 Imperial Street, Los Angeles, California.  

On June 17, 2024, the Court granted ADPC’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motions to compel deposition appearance, initially scheduled for September 12, 2024, to July 12, 2024. (Min. Order, June 17, 2024.) 

ADPC moves to compel the depositions and production of documents of Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) and of non-party David Muir (“Muir”), in addition to seeking monetary sanctions. 

Plaintiff and Muir oppose the motion. As of July 5, 2024, no reply has been filed. 

 

II. DISCUSSION¿ 

CCP § 2024.020(a) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” 

Muir argues that the discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut off dates were January 9, 2023 and January 23, 2023, in reference to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Steven J. Revitz, made in opposition to ADPC’s motion. As Plaintiff’s counsel declares, trial was initially scheduled for March 22, 2022 at the Case Management Conference. (Min. Order, Jan. 29, 2021). At the June 1, 2023 Trial Setting Conference, trial was scheduled for July 22, 2024. (Min. Order, June 1, 2023.) The order did not expressly provide that trial related deadlines would be continued to the new trial date. (Ibid.)  

It should be noted that this case matter was recently reassigned as of July 5, 2024. According to this Court’s review of the docket, there is some ambiguity as to whether discovery related deadlines were intended to run with the new trial date, considering there were other discovery motions heard after the initial trial date. For example, the last motion concerning discovery was Plaintiff’s motion to deem request for admissions admitted against defendant Jennemann, heard on December 13, 2023. If this Court were to accept Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration as true that discovery and motion cut-off dates were actually January 9, 2023 and January 23, 2023, then it would not be feasible for Plaintiff’s discovery motion to have been heard after those dates. This Court can only conclude, as a matter of practicality, that the trial related deadlines were intended to be continued with the setting of the current trial date of July 22, 2024 at the Trial Setting Conference.  

Nonetheless, ADPC’s discovery motions are untimely. The issue is not that the motions were brought after the motion cut-off deadline, since ADPC’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on the motions were granted. Just because the right to be heard has passed does not mean that the Court has no power or errs in hearing it. (Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Prod., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1586 (Pelton-Shepherd).) The issue is that ADPC has delayed in seeking these depositions, and discovery is closed at this juncture. 

ADPC has been a party to this action since January 3, 2022. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, ADPC initially noticed in December 2022 for January 2023 the deposition of Plaintiff’s PMK, Brian Rosenblum (“Rosenblum”). Rosenblum was prepared to appear for his deposition on January 17, 2023, but ADPC’s counsel cancelled the deposition on January 16, 2023. (Revitz Decl. ¶ 12.) Over one year later, ADPC noticed Rosenblum’s deposition on May 30, 2024 and June 10, 2024, close to the discovery cut-off deadline based on the current trial date, and waited until May 21, 2024 to serve a deposition subpoena on non-party Muir. Setting aside issues of proper service and objections to the deposition notices, as raised in the oppositions, the issue is that even if the Court were inclined to grant ADPC’s motions, ADPC has run afoul of the discovery cut-off date such that this Court must make a determination as to whether discovery should be reopened for the purpose of allowing the belated depositions.  

As previously discussed, ADPC has not demonstrated any diligence in conducting discovery, nor has ADPC filed any motion for leave to reopen discovery. (See Pelton-Shepherd, supra, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1586 [Trial court could not hear and grant plaintiff's belated motion to compel discovery without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose; plaintiff failed to file any motion for leave to reopen discovery so that motion to compel could be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date, and there was no indication that the court considered any of the matters relevant to whether discovery should have been reopened for the hearing of the motion to compel, including but not limited to the reasons for the discovery and plaintiff's diligence or lack of diligence in seeking those documents and in seeking a hearing on its motion to compel.].)  

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, ADPC’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s PMK and to compel the deposition of Muir are DENIED.  

The Court declines Plaintiff’s and Muir’s request for monetary sanctions against ADPC. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: July 11, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim¿ 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

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 SMCDEPT78@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.