Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV02928, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02928    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

PATRICIA DONNELLY, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

WILLIAM RANDOLPH FRY, ET AL.,  

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV02928 

 

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

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 7, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND  

On January 25, 2022, plaintiff Patricia Donnelly (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants William Randolph Fry (“Fry”), Gitibin & Associates, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from an automobile collision. Trial is currently set for November 12, 2024. 

Defendant Fry now moves to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s physical examination, which had been noticed prior to the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Fry 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. 

 

Fry asserts that the partiers stipulated to continue trial to November 12, 2024, and he had agreed to Plaintiff’s insistence that discovery be deemed closed as part of the stipulation. However, on the same day the Court signed the parties’ stipulation to continue trial, Plaintiff then served an objection to Defendant’s second request for Plaintiff’s physical examination on the grounds that the examination as scheduled three days after the discovery cut-off date. Dry avers that if he knew that Plaintiff would object to the examination notice when no such objections were raised before, then he would not have agreed for discovery to be closed. Fry argues there will be no prejudice to reopen discovery for the purpose of allowing the examination, and that he will suffer irreparable harm if not allowed to examine Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff makes various contentions about untimeliness of the motion, defective medical examination, and defense counsel’s lack of diligence, and requests monetary sanctions against Fry for unilaterally noticing the examination until after discovery cut-off. In reply, Fry argues bad faith, gamesmanship, and mischaracterization of the factual dispute.  

Here, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial date on April 2, 2024, in which the trial date was continued from May 13, 2024 to the current trial date of November 12, 2024. (Joint Stip. & Order, April 2, 2024.) The instant motion to reopen discovery was brought three days later, on April 5, 2024. The Court will not weigh on the party’s aspersions cast against each other, and reviews the facts of the matter objectively. Fry is entitled to a physical examination of Plaintiff pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, and Plaintiff identifies no prejudice in re-opening discovery for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s physical examination. Additionally, the November 12, 2024 trial date was mutually agreed upon, and there is sufficient time for Plaintiff’s physical examination (or any motion to compel the attendance of the physical examination) 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, Fry’s request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s physical examination, and for any discovery motions related to this examination, is GRANTED. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to resolve any disputes regarding the notice and scheduling of Plaintiff’s physical examination. Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Fry and his counsel is denied.  

 

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 6th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court