Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 19STCV36731 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19STCV36731, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV36731 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Global Environmental Network, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purposes

Respondent: Plaintiffs Jose Ramirez and Marisol Reyes

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Global Environmental Network, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purposes is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident on Interstate 10 (I-10). On January 5, 2019, Jesus Angel Reyes Corrales (Reyes) was driving westbound on I-10 in the fourth lane with Grisol Lupita Ramirez (Ramirez) as a passenger. As a result of an allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in mud, gravel, and rocks on the roadway, Reyes lost control of the vehicle, collided with the concrete center median, and came to a stop in the second lane. After observing smoke from the vehicle’s engine, Reyes and Ramirez exited the vehicle. Around the same time, Michael Minh Quang Dinh (Dinh) was driving in the second lane. After Dinh attempted to stop to avoid a collision, the same allegedly dangerous condition caused Dinh to lose control of the vehicle and hit Ramirez. Ramirez sustained serious injuries and died the same day.

On October 15, 2019, Ramirez’s parents, Jose Ramirez and Marisol Reyes (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed a complaint against the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Dinh, Reyes, and Does 1-1,000, alleging the following causes of action: (1)¿negligence – dangerous conditions of public property (against Defendant and Does 500-1,000), (2) negligence – failure to warn of a dangerous condition (against Defendant and Does 500-1,000), and (3) negligence – wrongful death (against all defendants).

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Doe 500 with Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC (Guy F. Atkinson Construction.)

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Doe 504 with Global Environmental Network, Inc. (Defendant).

On April 17, 2023, Defendant filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for May 23, with a final status conference set for January 11, 2024, and a jury trial on January 23.

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to reopen discovery for the limited purposes of subpoenaing the contractual agreements between Guy F. Atkinson Construction and its twenty-nine subcontractors. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Factors relevant to deciding such a motion include “(1) [t]he necessity and the reasons for the discovery[;] (2) [t]he 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) [a]ny 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[; and] (4) [t]he length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Discussion

In this case, Plaintiffs substituted Doe 504 for Defendant on November 12, 2020. On January 6, 2021, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Complaint. On February 4, the parties stipulated to continue trial dates and related discovery dates from April 13 to August 10. On July 27, the action was transferred to an independent calendar court and all trial dates were vacated. On October 29, the court held a status conference, noted discovery had commenced, and scheduled a trial setting conference for February 9, 2022. At the February 9 trial setting conference, the court scheduled a final status conference for January 24, 2023, and a jury trial for February 7, 2023.

On January 12, 2023, Guy F. Atkinson Construction filed an ex parte application to continue trial dates on the grounds that Plaintiffs were in settlement discussions with Guy F. Atkinson Construction and Caltrans. On the same day, Guy F. Atkinson Construction and Caltrans filed a motion for a determination of good faith settlement that the court later granted. On January 17, the court granted the ex parte application and continued the final status conference to January 11, 2024, and the jury trial to January 23, 2024. In doing so, the court noted that expert-related discovery deadlines were extended while fact discovery and expert designation deadlines remained closed.

Here, Defendant argues there is good cause to reopen discovery because Defendant has not had an opportunity complete all essential discovery prior to trial by securing the contractual agreements between Guy F. Atkinson Construction and its subcontractors. (Stepanyan Decl., ¶ 5.) The court notes, however, that Defendant fails to demonstrate how it was prevented from completing all essential discovery when it had until the end of 2022 to complete discovery. Furthermore, Defendant does not describe how it was diligent in seeking the requested discovery, or at an earlier date prevented from obtaining the discovery it now seeks.

While Defendant suggests this additional discovery is necessary to assess Defendant’s duty of care with regards to the construction project, Plaintiffs contend that justification is contradicted by Defendant’s own discovery admissions. According to Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission, Defendant was responsible for inspecting the dirt shoulder area of the construction project (Joens Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4:7-17; Ex. 2., p. 5:6-8), providing reports of its inspections to Guy F. Atkinson Construction (Joens Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4:18-22; Ex. 2, p. 5:12-13), providing recommendations for best management practices to Guy F. Atkinson Construction (Joens Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4:26-5:7, 5:11-13, 5:24-26, 6:2-3; Ex. 2, p. 5:19-23, 5:27-6:1, 6:11-13, 6:17-19).

However, Defendant also denied that it was responsible for making recommendations on the stabilization of loose soil in the relevant dirt shoulder area (Joens Decl., Ex. 1, p. 6:4-6, 6:10-11; Ex. 2, p. 6:20-22, 6:26-28) and recommendations on the construction of the dirt shoulder area (Joens Decl., Ex. 1, p. 5:17-20; Ex. 2, p. 6:5-7). Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Defendant’s discovery responses do not establish it was solely responsible for inspecting the dirt shoulder area or preventing sediment runoff.

Nevertheless, it is evident to the court that Defendant did not diligently seek these subcontractor agreements given the amount of time that has already passed for discovery, coupled with an utter lack of justification for the delay. However, the other factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b) weigh in favor of allowing Defendant to subpoena the subcontractor agreements.

With respect to the necessity and the reasons for discovery, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(1), the purposes of discovery are “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 Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294.)

Here, subpoenaing the contracts of subcontractors will allow Defendant to clarify the duties and responsibilities of other parties in the construction and maintenance of the dirt shoulder at issue, especially given Defendant denies it was responsible for making recommendations on the construction of the dirt shoulder and stabilization of loose soil.

Also, with respect to prejudice to the other party, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(3) and to the length of time that has elapsed between the date previously set for trial and the date presently set, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(4), trial was continued from February 2023 to January 2024. Given this continuance, the brief opening of discovery will not delay Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare for trial. To the extent Plaintiffs claim they relied on Defendant’s admissions in dismissing or settling with other parties in this action, Defendant’s own admissions make clear, as noted above, that it was not the only party responsible for inspecting the dirt shoulder or preventing runoff.

Accordingly, based on Defendant’s need to subpoena the contracts of third-party contractors and the minimal prejudice to Plaintiffs, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of subpoenaing the subcontracts between Guy F. Atkinson Construction and its subcontractors. Subpoenas to be issued on or before June 2, 2023.