Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV16375, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV16375, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16375 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery

TENTATIVE

The motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2020, Vartan Aristakian and Vahagn H. Aristakian filed a complaint against Alaric Burton (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring April 29, 2018, at or near the intersection of the 210 Freeway and La Tuna Canyon Road in Tujunga.

On June 15, 2022, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff Vartan Aristakian filed a request for dismissal of their claims.

On filing, the Court set a trial date of October 27, 2021. The trial date was vacated, reset for July 25, 2023, continued to November 29, 2023, and then continued again to March 25, 2024.

On March 5, 2024, the Court granted the opposed ex parte application of Plaintiff Vahagn Aristakian (“Plaintiff”) to continue the trial again. Trial is now set for August 28, 2024. The Court did not extend any deadlines for discovery at that time.

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to reopen discovery. Defendant filed an opposition on March 28. Plaintiff filed a reply on April 4.

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., section 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿ ¿¿

“In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿ (2) The 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) Any 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.¿ (4) The 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., section 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)¿¿¿

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Defendant asserts a number of objections to the Declaration of Raffi Sarukhanyan. The objections are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, Defendant contends that the motion, although timely filed, was not timely served. (Opp. at 7-8.) Plaintiff concedes that an error was made in not properly accounting for an intervening court holiday. (Reply at 4.)

If Defendant contends that he suffered prejudice as a result of the error, Defendant may at the hearing request a brief continuance of the hearing so that Defendant may have the full statutory period to prepare an opposition to the motion.

The Court will now proceed to address the merits of the motion, in case Defendant does not make such a request.

The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for essentially two reasons: (1) to depose a potentially adverse witness; and (2) to obtain a ruling on Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel, filed on March 5 and set for hearing on June 26. Plaintiff argues (among other things) that he first learned of the witness, Patrick Eisman, in October 2023 and that Mr. Eisman may have critical information regarding whether (as Defendant contends) Plaintiff was speeding at the time of the accident. Indeed, it appears that Defendant agrees that Mr. Eisman should be deposed and “would be at trial … a key witness.” (Sarukhanyan Reply Decl., Exh. B.) Plaintiff also argues that the motion to compel (if successful) will help eliminate non-issues and streamline the trial.

Defendant does not present contrary evidence or argument.

The 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.¿

This case has been pending for almost four years. The case has been at issue for close to two years. There already have been multiple continuances of the trial dates and discovery cutoffs.

Plaintiff argues that counsel has experienced serious family issues that required him to be out of the country for a month in September-October 2023 and again for most of January and February 2024. The Court will certainly take these circumstances into account, but Plaintiff has not explained why the written discovery was not sought at an earlier date, such as the second half of 2022 (after Defendant answered) or the first nine months of 2023 (before the onset of the family emergency).

Plaintiff has adequately explained the failure to depose the adverse witness, as counsel did not learn of the existence of this witness until October 2023. The witness is not listed on the police report and was not disclosed in Defendant’s discovery responses. (Sarukhanyan Decl., ¶ 9.)

Any 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.¿

Trial is set for August 28, 2024. It does not appear likely that granting this motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set or cause any undue or unfair prejudice to either party.

The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

Trial was already continued from March 5, 2024 to August 28, 2024.

The Court has considered all of the argument and evidence presented by both sides, as well as each of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b), and all of the other relevant circumstances. Defendant raises fair questions about the diligence of the Plaintiff, but the Court’s concerns about diligence are ameliorated somewhat by the family circumstances of Plaintiff’s counsel described in the moving papers, as well as the fact that Plaintiff was not aware of a critical witness until October 2023. The other factors, and in particular the necessity of/reasons for the discovery and the likelihood that no continuance of trial will be necessary, weigh strongly in favor of granting the motion.

On balance, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing for the request to reopen discovery. The motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery.

All discovery deadlines are reset based on the trial date of August 28, 2024.

Moving Party to give notice.