TENTATIVE

Defendant Jacqueline Kasparian’s motion for a protective order is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant filing this motion in the trial court.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.250 provides in relevant part: “(a) A party who has been served with a demand to exchange information concerning expert trial witnesses may promptly move for a protective order .... [¶] (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. The protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: [¶] (1) That the demand be quashed because it was not timely served. [¶] (2) That the date of exchange be earlier or later than that specified in the demand. [¶] (3) That the exchange be made only on specified terms and conditions. [¶] (4) That the production and exchange of any reports and writings of experts be made at a different place or at a different time than specified in the demand. [¶] (5) That some or all of the parties be divided into sides on the basis of their identity of interest in the issues in the action, and that the designation of any experts as described in subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210 be made by any side so created. [¶] (6) That a party or a side reduce the list of employed or retained experts designated by that party or side under subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210.” 

Discussion

Defendant moves for a protective order quashing Plaintiff’s demand to exchange expert witness information, arguing that Plaintiff and Defendant have both served initial expert disclosures and supplemental expert disclosures in compliance with the deadlines previously in effect for the May 16, 2022 trial date. There was no agreement in the joint stipulation to continue trial regarding a continuance of the expert disclosure deadlines. In paragraph none, the joint stipulation expressly excluded continuance of the expert disclosures. However, on August 1, 2022, Plaintiff served a demand to exchange expert witness information.

The Court notes this case has been sent to trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a) provides: “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).)  Following the Court’s continuance of the trial date to October 10, 2022, the discovery and discovery motion cutoffs were to correlate with the new trial date. The instant motion, however, is set to be heard after the continued trial date.  

The Court cannot grant discovery motions after the cutoff date unless the moving party has moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to have the motions heard closer to the trial date. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587.) The Court’s discretion in allowing the motions to be heard closer to the trial date than allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 is bounded by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, which include submission of a meet and confer declaration and the trial court’s consideration of the statutory factors. (Id.)  

The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice.