Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC724250, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC724250    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Alexandra R. McIntosh, APC      

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Emilio Reyes

(1)   Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Interrogatories and to Reopen Discovery

(2)   Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admission and to Reopen Discovery

(3)   Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and to Reopen Discovery

The court considered the amended moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

DISCUSSION

Now pending before the court are the following three motions filed by defendant Alexandra R. McIntosh, APC (“Defendant”): (1) the motion to compel plaintiff Emilio Reyes (“Plaintiff”) to serve responses to interrogatories and to reopen discovery, (2) the motion to deem admitted the requests for admission served on Plaintiff and to reopen discovery, and (3) the motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to inspection demands for documents and to reopen discovery.  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses Defendant’s three motions together.

The court denies Defendant’s motions because (1) the discovery motion cutoff date has passed, and (2) the court finds that the circumstances presented do not justify reopening discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, 2024.050.)

Except as otherwise provided, “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).)  “Thus, if a party properly notices a discovery motion to be heard on or before the discovery motion cutoff date, that party has a right to have the motion heard.  By negative implication, 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.”  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [emphasis in original].) 

On March 6, 2023, the court set this case for trial for the date of May 15, 2024.  (March 6, 2023 Minute Order, p. 1.)  On May 2, 2024, the court (1) continued trial, pursuant to the request of Plaintiff, from May 15, 2024 to July 10, 2024, and (2) ordered that “[a]ll discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut-off dates, and deadlines for the exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses, shall be based on the date initially set for trial of this action (5/15/24) and shall not be reopened or based on the new trial date, except that Defendants may take the deposition of Plaintiff Emilio Reyes pursuant [to] the Court’s 5/1/24 order.”  (May 2, 2024 Minute Order, pp. 1-2.)  On June 27, 2024, the court continued trial from July 10, 2024 to July 17, 2024 on the court’s own motion.  (June 27, 2024 Minute Order, p. 2.)  The court did not reopen discovery or extend the discovery and discovery motion cutoff dates in that order.  (Ibid.) 

Thereafter, on July 15, 2024, the court issued a minute order (1) continuing trial from July 17, 2024 to October 16, 2024, and (2) ordering that “the discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut-off dates are only extended with respect to the deposition of Plaintiff, Emilio Reyes.”  (July 15, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)  On October 9, 2024, the court issued an order granting defendants Los Indios de San Gabriel, Inc. and Andrew Salas’s motion for order continuing trial and final status conference, and ordered that (1) trial in this action is continued from October 16, 2024 to January 29, 2025, and (2) the discovery cutoff and discovery motion cutoff dates (i) were not extended by the continuance and (ii) shall be based on the date initially set for trial of this action, i.e., May 15, 2024.  (Oct. 9, 2024 Order, p. 2:6-13.)

In considering Defendant’s request that the court reopen discovery and permit its motions to be heard, the court has taken into consideration (1) that Defendant served the subject discovery on March 16, 2024, approximately two months before the date trial was initially set in this action, (2) the reasons for the discovery, (3) Defendant’s lack of diligence in seeking the discovery in light of the age of this case and the court’s March 6, 2023 order setting this case for trial in May 2024, (4) the likelihood that permitting Defendant’s discovery motions to go forward will interfere with the trial calendar and trial in this action, which is set for January 29, 2025, and will prejudice Plaintiff, (5) the length of time that has elapsed between the dates previously and presently set for trial, and (6) the age of this case, the number of trial continuances, and the current trial date of January 29, 2025.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b); Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Ex. 3 [Proof of Personal Service of Interrogatories on March 16, 2024]; Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Deem Admissions Admitted, Ex. 2 [Proof of Personal Service of Requests for Admission on March 16, 2024]; Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Responses to Doc. Demands, Ex. 2 [Proof of Personal Service of Demands for Documents on March 16, 2024].)  The court further notes that, although Defendant has claimed, in its motions, that it served discovery on Plaintiff “only ten (10) days after the Court set the initial trial date[,]” the court, as set forth above, set this case for trial on March 6, 2023, but Defendant served the subject discovery on Plaintiff over a year later, on March 16, 2024.  (Mar. 6, 2023 Minute Order, p. 1 [setting trial for May 15, 2024]; Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Ex. 3; Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Deem Admissions Admitted, Ex. 2; Sisson Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Responses to Doc. Demands, Ex. 2.)

The court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Defendant’s requests that the court reopen discovery in this action and permit Defendant’s discovery motions to go forward.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subds. (a), (b).)

Thus, the court finds that (1) the discovery motion cutoff date in this case has passed, such that (2) Defendant does not have a right to have its motions heard.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, 2024.050.)

ORDER

The court denies defendant Alexandra R. McIntosh, APC’s (1) motion to compel plaintiff Emilio Reyes to serve responses to interrogatories and to reopen discovery, (2) motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admission served on plaintiff Emilio Reyes and to reopen discovery, and (3) motion to compel plaintiff Emilio Reyes to respond to inspection demands for documents and to reopen discovery.

            The court orders plaintiff Emilio Reyes to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 7, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court