Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV08525, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21STCV08525    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

GIGI BANGURA, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

ALBERT DANG, ET AL.,  

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 21STCV08525 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 12, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND  

On March 3, 2021, plaintiff Gigi Bangura (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Albert Dang (“Dang”), State of California, California State University, California State University of Northridge, CSU-Northridge, and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from an automobile collision. Trial is currently set for May 23, 2024. 

Plaintiff now moves to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting defendant Dang’s deposition.  

Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University (erroneously sued as “State of California, California State University, California State University of Northridge, and CSU Northridge”) and Dang (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion. Plaintiff filed a reply.    

 

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. 

 

Plaintiff asserts he did not have the opportunity to take the deposition of Dang due to “excusable circumstances.” On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff agreed to postpone deposing Dang until closer to the trial date to see if mediation could be reached. Trial was continued multiple times, and Dang’s deposition was not set. Plaintiff’s counsel avers that this was a clerical error, and not a deliberate tactic. Plaintiff asserts she will be highly prejudiced if she is denied the opportunity to depose Dang, who is the key witness to the motor vehicle accident, and ultimately the party against whom liability must be proven. Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendants, and no agreement was reached. In opposition, Defendants assert Plaintiff was not diligent in seeking Dang’s deposition, and that Plaintiff relies on the declaration from counsel who had not formally joined the case until March 4, 2024 to be able to attest to any prior arrangements. Defendants contend that reopening discovery would delay trial.  

Here, Plaintiff purportedly failing to calendar the deposition of Dang after such a lengthy period evinces some measure of lack of diligence. However, Dang’s deposition is necessary for Plaintiff to prove his case, and therefore allow this case to be tried on its merits. Additionally, trial is currently set for May 23, 2024, and there is still sufficient time for Dang’s deposition to be concluded without disturbing the current trial date. Thus, there is no apparent prejudice to any party to reopen discovery for this purpose only.  

 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting Dang’s deposition is GRANTED. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date to proceed with Dang’s deposition, which must be completed within thirty (30) days of the hearing.  

 

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 11th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court