SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background Facts 

Plaintiff Betty Sipho (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), and Doe Bus Driver for alleged injuries Plaintiff sustained when bus doors closed and stuck Plaintiff.     

On May 18, 2023, pursuant to oral stipulation at the Final Status Conference, trial and all trial related dates were continued to September 6, 2023. (Min. Order, May 18, 2023.) 

Plaintiff, at this time, moves to reopen discovery for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to depose LACMTA’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).  

2. 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. 

 

Here, as an initial matter, the Court on September 19, 2022 granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of LACMTA’s PMK, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of LACMTA’s bus driver. (Min. Order, Sept. 19, 2022.) The Court specified that LACMTA was ordered to produce its PMK as to categories 1-4 in Plaintiff’s deposition notice, but that LACMTA was not required to produce its PMK as to categories 5-8. (Ibid.) The deposition did not move forward, and on May 10, 2023, Plaintiff brought a motion for terminating sanctions or in the alternative compelling the deposition of LACMTA’s PMK. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and ordered the parties to work together to find a mutually agreeable date to conduct the PMK’s deposition, to be completed no later than August 18, 2023. (Min. Order, July 27, 2023.) 

LACMTA provides that its PMK’s deposition was mutually scheduled for August 17, 2023, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for the purposes of conducting said deposition is now moot. Plaintiff’s moving papers specifies her request for discovery be reopened is premised upon the PMK’s deposition, and therefore the Court will not address LACMTA’s arguments regarding the unidentified bus driver, which is not relevant to Plaintiff’s motion. Because LACMTA represents that the PMK’s deposition was mutually scheduled for August 17, 2023, and Plaintiff did not file a reply indicating otherwise, the Court presumes the deposition moved forward and this motion is now moot.   

 

Unless Plaintiff demonstrates that the deposition did not in fact move forward, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for the purposes of conducting the deposition of LACMTA’s PMK is moot. Furthermore, LACMTA’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.