Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV36611, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV36611    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Andrew Altholz   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Compel Responses to Propounded Discovery

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Andrew Altholz (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Jose Rubio (“Plaintiff”) to provide responses to various sets of discovery, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $210.

The court finds that the discovery motion cutoff date and has passed and therefore denies Defendant’s motion. 

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Trial in this action was initially set for December 2, 2020.  On November 20, 2020, the court vacated the trial date.  (Nov. 20, 2020 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The court did not reopen discovery or extend the discovery motion cutoff date at that time.  Thereafter, on December 20, 2022, the court set trial for August 2, 2023.  (Dec. 20, 2022 Minute Order, p. 2.)  The court did not reopen discovery or extend the discovery motion cutoff date.  (Ibid.)  On July 21, 2023, the court found that this case was not ready for trial and continued trial to October 11, 2023. (July 21, 2023 Minute Order.)  The court did not reopen discovery or extend the discovery motion cutoff date.  (Ibid.)

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery, requesting that the court “re-open discovery.”  (Pl. April 19, 2023 Notice of Motion to Re-Open Discovery, p. 2:2-3.)  Plaintiff did not request that the court grant leave “to have a motion concerning discovery heard” or otherwise extend the discovery motion cutoff date.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)  Thus, the court’s June 9, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s motion ordered only that “[t]he discovery cutoff date is extended to 30 days before the current trial date of  August 2, 2023[,]” and did not order that the discovery motion cutoff date was extended.  (June 9, 2023 Order, p. 2:11-12, 2:15-17.) 

Thus, the court finds that the discovery motion cutoff date in this action is November 17, 2020 (i.e., 15 days before the date this action was initially set for trial on December 2, 2020).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  Moreover, even if the court had ordered that the discovery cutoff date was extended in its June 9, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s motion, the discovery cutoff date would have been based on the then-current trial date of August 2, 2023, and therefore would have expired on July 18, 2023.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  Finally, Defendant did not request that the court grant leave to have this motion concerning discovery heard and did not address any of the factors that the court is required to take into consideration on such a motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.) 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the discovery motion cutoff date in this action has passed and therefore Defendant does not have a right to have this motion heard.  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [“a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard”] [italics in original].)

ORDER

The court denies defendant Andrew Altholz’s motion to compel responses to propounded discovery.

The court orders defendant Andrew Altholz to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 7, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court