Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV38321, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38321    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff John Edward Moran (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Benjamin Michael Drust and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The First Amend Complaint (“FAC”) alleges Drust was employed as a rideshare driver by Lyft, and that Plaintiff was a passenger in Drust’s vehicle when the accident occurred. 

On January 31, 2022, Lyft filed the instant motion to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff and for an order compelling Plaintiff to answer specific questions not fully answered at Plaintiff’s first deposition session.  Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Lyft filed a reply.  The matter was originally heard on July 20, 2022, where it was continued to September 21, 2022, for the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning the discovery dispute.  (Min. Order, July 20, 2022.)  If the parties were unable to resolve all outstanding issues at the IDC, the parties were ordered to submit a joint statement of items in dispute at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date.  (Id.)  On September 16, 2022, Lyft filed a notice of continuance providing that the hearing on its motion had been continued to March 16, 2023, to accommodate the IDC Lyft scheduled for October 11, 2022. 

The parties appeared for the IDC on October 11, 2022, where the issues were deemed resolved after discussion with the parties.  (Min. Order, Oct. 11, 2022.)  Lyft’s counsel was asked to file a notice of outcome of IDC.  Lyft filed the notice of outcome on October 17, 2022, wherein Lyft indicated that the instant motion would be moot if Plaintiff appeared for his mental evaluation and answered certain questions relating to his pre-accident and post-accident history.  Lyft further indicated that it scheduled a second IDC for January 25, 2023, to discuss the necessity of proceeding with this motion. 

To date, the parties have not filed a joint statement or any other briefing concerning the instant motion.  Further, the Court’s records show that the second IDC Lyft purportedly scheduled for January 25, 2023, did not proceed.  The Court presumes all issues remain resolved and there is nothing going forward at this time.  The motion is taken off calendar as moot.  The Court asks Counsel to ensure matters are promptly taken off calendar using the CRS online reservation system when they become moot. 

Moving Defendant Lyft is ordered to give notice. 

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 16^th day of March 2023