Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV04480, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04480    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Reopen Discovery filed by Plaintiff Maria Teresa Franco. 

TENTATIVE

The motion is granted in part.

BACKGROUND

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Teresa Franco, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arturo Franco Melendez (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against First Southern Baptist Church of Sylmar, Jose Soto Plasencia and Does 1 to 50 for Motor Vehicle Negligence, Premises Liability, General Negligence, and Survival Action

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to reopen discovery. Defendant First Southern Baptist Church of Sylmar (“Defendant”) filed its opposition on February 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on February 20, 2024.

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).)¿¿¿ 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (c).)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

On Plaintiff’s ex parte application, heard on January 23, 2024, the Court continued the trial date from February 22 to June 25, 2024.  The Court did not make an order extending the discovery cutoff but ruled that either party could seek such relief through a noticed motion.

Plaintiff now seeks such relief. 

Defendant does not oppose extending the discovery cutoff to allow the parties to take the deposition of Jose Soto Plasencia – who is a named defendant but has not appeared, and who was subpoenaed for a deposition scheduled for January 4, 2024, but did not appear.

Plaintiff seeks a broader reopening of discovery but has not made a sufficient showing of good cause on this record at this time.  Depending on whether Mr. Soto Plasencia testifies at deposition, and, if so, what he says, either party may return to court and seek a further extension of discovery based on a showing of good cause. 

Accordingly, at this time, the motion is GRANTED as to the deposition of Mr. Soto Plasencia and otherwise denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. 

The Court ORDERS that the deposition of Jose Soto Plasencia may be taken up until 30 days before the current trial date.

All other requests for relief are DENIED without prejudice.

Other than the deposition of Mr. Soto Plasencia, discovery is at this time closed.

Moving Party to provide notice.