Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV22059, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22059    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 29

Discussion

Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December 9, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial and expert related dates and deadlines, and to modify the order to limit the re-opening of expert discovery in relation to Plaintiff’s experts only.

The court retains the inherent authority to amend its own orders on its own motion. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1107.)  The court’s inherent authority to reconsider and correct its own orders is constitutionally derived. (Walker v. Superior Court¿(1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) A court “must exercise due consideration before modifying, amending, or revoking its prior order.” (Case v. Lazben Financial Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 172, 189.)  A court’s inherent power to reconsider interim rulings may be exercised “even in the absence of newly discovered evidence” and “[e]ven without a change of law.” (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1231, Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237.) Thus, the inherent power is distinct from a court’s power under CCP § 1008 following a motion for reconsideration. (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 389: “Consequently, we hold that the separation of powers doctrine precludes an interpretation of section 1008 that would deprive a trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider its own interim orders sua sponte.”) 

The Court will exercise its inherent authority and reconsider and correct its own order sua sponte. The grounds asserted by Plaintiff in the Ex Parte application for a trial continuance were that:

(1)  Plaintiff’s experts, Andrew Thierry, M.D. and Rajan Patel, M.D. and John J. Smith, P.E. are not available to be deposed and testify at the current trial date.

(2)  Plaintiff would be prejudiced if plaintiff’s retained experts could not testify on his behalf due to unavailability.

(Johnson Decl., Exh. A.)

As the only good cause offered in Plaintiff’s ex parte application related to Plaintiff’s experts being unavailable for deposition and to testify at trial, the Court finds that the December 9, 2022 order should be modified to state: “Expert discovery relating to Plaintiff’s experts only is to track the new trial date.”

Lastly, Defendant requests a trial continuance. However, Defendant has not filed a noticed motion for a trial continuance and may elect to do so.