Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV35950, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV35950    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Guixi Zou and Andrew Zou’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.

Objections

Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendant’ Evidence is SUSTAINED.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020, discovery is cut-off thirty days “before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Moreover, “[e]xcept as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (CCP § 2024.020(b).) 

However, in Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, the Court held that a mistrial, new trial, or a reversal on appeal all result in discovery being automatically reopened. (Id.) The Court in Beverly stated that: “In California, the cutoff date for discovery is generally linked to ‘the date initially set for trial.’… For example, section 2024, subdivision (a) [now CCP section 2024.020] provides in relevant part, ‘[A]ny 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.’” (Id. at 1293.)  The Court concluded that the intent of the phrase "initial trial date" was to make clear the postponement or continuance of a trial does not automatically operate to reopen discovery. (Id., at 1295.) “There is no mention in the reporter's notes nor in any case or commentary we have found of an intent to prohibit additional discovery following a mistrial, order granting new trial or reversal on appeal. So far as we can determine, this was never thought to be a problem by the courts, the Legislature or the legal community.” (Id.) The Court stated that it believed permitting additional discovery following a mistrial, order granting new trial or reversal on appeal is consistent with the overall purposes of the discovery rules to facilitate trial preparation, expedite trial and encourage settlement.

The purposes of California's discovery statutes are well known. They are intended, among other things, 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. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) We must construe the statutes time limitations in a way which is consistent with the overall purposes of discovery cited above. (Id. at p. 371, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) 

(Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294-95.)  

Further, the California Supreme Court in Fairmont Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245 affirmed the holding in Beverly. (Id. at 247.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for an order to reopen discovery as to all parties in this case; or in the alternative for an order setting a new non-expert discovery deadline and a new expert witness discovery deadline based on the holdings in Fairmont Insurance Company v. Superior Court, supra 22 Cal. 4th 245 and Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1289 that a mistrial automatically restarts the time limitations on discovery. Plaintiffs argue that this case was tried and there was a mistrial.

The Court agrees that the mistrial reopened all discovery and that the new trial date, which is September 7, 2023, provides new deadlines for discovery.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245; Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289.)  As such, the discovery cutoff date is now August 8, 2023, and the motion cutoff date is August 23, 2023.

Defendant provides that Plaintiffs desire to reopen all discovery, but defendants contend that only expert discovery should be reopened, since all parties have agreed to reopen expert discovery. Plaintiffs already conducted exhaustive discovery in this case, and reopening all discovery would be a considerable burden to defendants and to this Court. However, the Court is without authority to limit the discovery in this case under the holdings of Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245; Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289.

Moreover, Defendant’s attempt to distinguish the facts in this case from Fairmont and Beverly are unavailing. The Court in both cases was very clear that a mistrial automatically reopens all discovery, not just expert discovery. The Court cited to CCP section 2024.020, which relates to all discovery, not just expert discovery. Defendant has not offered any caselaw that states otherwise.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.