Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV12330, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12330    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 31

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

BRIANA HUDSON, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

MANSFIELD AND ASSOCIATES, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 21STCV12330 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

March 21, 2024 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 1, 2021, plaintiff Briana Hudson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Manfield and Associates (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a slip and fall on allegedly defective stairs covered in foreign debris and dust. The trial date is currently set for May 17, 2024.  

On August 5, 2023, the parties stipulated to continue trial to February 26, 2024 and for all pre-trial discovery and motion deadlines to track with the new trial date. (Stip. & Order, Aug. 5, 2023.) The Court then continued the trial date to May 17, 2024, but denied without prejudice the request to continue or reopen discovery on the grounds that, absent the parties’ agreement, the request must be filed as a noticed motion. (Min. Order, Jan. 18, 2024.). Thus, the discovery cut-off deadline was January 29, 2024, and the right for discovery motions to be heard was by February 12, 2024. (CCP § 2024.020(a); CRC, Rule 1.10(b).)  

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen discovery. Defendant opposes the motion. As of March 14, 2024, no reply was received.  

 

  1. Moving Argument 

Plaintiff argues she is still undergoing medical treatment, and that discovery must be re-opened so that the parties can exchange relevant documents, assess Plaintiff’s claimed damages to the full extent, and take relevant depositions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Plaintiff avers without further discovery, Plaintiff will not be able to exchange her medical records or depose any ancillary treating physicians to authenticate those records, which leaves her at the risk of being undercompensated for her injuries.  

Plaintiff’s treating surgeon, Timothy Charlton, M.D. (“Dr. Charlton”) was deposed on September 13, 2023, in which he testified Plaintiff developed Morton’s neuroma on her injured foot and is a candidate for surgery to remove the neuroma. Plaintiff argues the earliest she was able to consult with Dr. Charlton was January 16, 2024, and anticipates that her surgery will be completed before May 17, 2024. As such, Plaintiff requests only that discovery be-reopened, and asserts Defendant will not be prejudiced. 

 

  1. Opposing Argument 

Defendant contends it Answered Plaintiff’s complaint on June 4, 2021, and discovery had commenced in its usual course, including the depositions of parties, witnesses, and medical providers. Defense counsel contends Plaintiff had been claiming on-going treatment and a need for surgery for over a year, and that Dr. Charlton’s testified he did not know what was wrong with Plaintiff’s foot and that he could not say, to a degree of medical certainty, that Plaintiff has Morton’s neuroma for possible future surgery to be considered. Additionally, Defendant contends Dr. Charlton did not opine that the neuroma was related to the slip and fall incident.  

Defendant contends there is no good cause to re-open discovery based on possible surgery that was contemplated 15 months ago, and that there is no necessity for additional discovery over this slip and fall case. Defendant avers if the basis for reopening discovery were premised on actual or potential ongoing medical care/treatment, then discovery would never close in any case for claims of future medical care and treatment. Defendant asserts it will be prejudiced if discovery were to reopen, because it would incur additional time and expense after the parties had been litigating for nearly three years.  

 

  1. Reply Argument 

Any reply was due on or before March 14, 2024; none was filed.  

 

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.” 

 

Here, the parties have had ample time to conduct discovery, and Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s neuroma and future surgery is uncertain and not necessarily attributable to the incident. The Court reviewed the deposition transcript provided by both parties. Dr. Charlton testified that he spoke with Plaintiff on June 15, 2023 about surgery, but that he was cautious about recommending surgery given that his threshold for surgery was strict, and that he would not recommend surgery unless he thought Plaintiff could get better. (Opp. Exh. B, Charlton Depo. 13:19-25; 14:1-10.)  Neuroma surgery was on the radar, but Dr. Charlton opined that Plaintiff had to meet a bit more of a threshold before he would recommend it, and that he believes her Morton’s neuroma was within the medical probability of 49-51% attributable to the fracture. (Id. at 17:3-16; 20:1-24.)  

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.) Plaintiff has provided no evidence that she has obtained clearance with Dr. Charlton to undergo surgery since his deposition, or properly supported that the surgery is necessary or essential to her damages to justify re-opening discovery. Similarly, Plaintiff cites generally to a “change in health plans” that prevented her from consulting with Dr. Charlton until January 16, 2024, but provides no further detail in terms of diligence. Plaintiff further avers that she believes surgical intervention will be completed before the current trial date, but provides no information of when the purported surgery is to occur, such that it would not disturb the current trial date. The original trial date was September 29, 2022, and after multiple continuances, it is now presently set for May 17, 2024. Aside from this surgery, that appears to have been contemplated as possibly part of Plaintiff’s future medical care, it appears that all major and relevant discovery has been completed at this time. After considering the evidence, the Court finds that the balancing of the factors set forth under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2024.050, subdivision (b), weighs against reopening discovery. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is DENIED.  

 

Moving party 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 20th day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court