Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV14271, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14271 Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Dept: 29
Stephens v. 1430 N. Cahuenga Partners, L.P.
23STCV14271
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On June
20, 2023, Nubia Stephens (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 1430 N.
Cahuenga Partners, LP, Sunset Room Hollywood, Sunset Entertainment Group, LLC,
Alan Hajjar (subsequently dismissed), Chris Breed (subsequently dismissed), and
Does 1 through 25 for premises liability and general negligence arising out of
an incident on June 26, 2021, at or near 1439 North Ivar Avenue in Los Angeles,
in which, Plaintiff alleges, another person tripped and fell into an unsecured
metal gate, a portion of which struck and caused injuries to Plaintiff.
On June
21, 2023, Plaintiff added amended the complaint to name Otto Turley (subsequently
dismissed) as Doe 1.
On January
18, 2024, 1430 N. Cahuenga Partners, LP, Sunset Room Hollywood, and Sunset
Entertainment Group, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.
When the
case was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of December 17, 2024.
In
December 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued trial to
March 27, 2025, and reset all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.
On March
12, 2025, the Court, on the ex parte application of Plaintiff, continued trial
to June 10, 2025. As the application was
based primarily on scheduling conflicts with trial, however, the Court did not
extend any discovery deadlines.
On March
25, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to reopen discovery. Defendants filed an
opposition on April 4, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 9.
Legal Standard
“(a) 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.
(b) 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 of Civil Procedure section
2016.040 requires that a meet and confer declaration must “state facts showing
a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion.”
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to reopen
discovery for the following purposes: (1) to file a motion to compel with
regard to certain questions not answered during the deposition of Otto Turley, who
testified as the person most qualified (“PMQ”) of Defendants; (2) to depose
Alana O’Riley; (3) to file a motion to compel the deposition of Alan Hajjar;
and (4) to allow Plaintiff to issue deposition subpoenas to obtain phone
records from Defendants’ phone carriers.
As a threshold matter,
Plaintiff has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement. (Ulyshen Decl., ¶¶ 15-16 & Exh. D.)
Plaintiff deposed Mr.
Turley on February 19, 2025, just six days before the discovery cutoff. (Id., ¶ 2.)
During the deposition, according to Plaintiff, defense counsel
instructed Mr. Turley not to answer at least 15 questions. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exh. B.) In addition, Plaintiff states that Mr. Turley
also identified Ms. O’Riley and Mr. Hajjar as persons with knowledge about certain
factual matters. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) Following the deposition, Plaintiff
subpoenaed certain phone records that, Plaintiff contends, contradict certain
aspects of Mr. Turley’s testimony. (Id.,
¶ 3.)
The Court now turns to the
factors specifically set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.
The
necessity and the reasons for the discovery
Plaintiff
has identified discovery relevant to the underlying facts that was not
completed prior to the discovery cutoff.
But for the cutoff, Plaintiff has identified a reasonable basis to file
the two proposed discovery motions, to notice the one proposed deposition, and to
issue the proposed subpoenas.
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.¿
Plaintiff
has made no showing of diligence. Parties
must arrange for discovery in a prompt manner, and when a party waits and schedules
a deposition just days before the discovery cutoff, there is a risk that the
party will not be able to move to compel or conduct follow-up discovery.
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.¿
Plaintiff
argues that the requested discovery is narrow in scope and could be completed
prior to the trial, without the need for any further continuance. (Ulyshen Decl. ¶ 12.)
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 originally set for December 17, 2024, and has been continued twice to March
27, 2025, and then June 10, 2025.
The
Court has considered all facts relevant to Plaintiff’s request, including,
but not limited to, the four factors identified in Code of Civil Procedure
section 2024.050. On this record, the
Court denies the motion. The Court gives
substantial weight to the absence of any showing of diligence by Plaintiff.
The Court also notes
that, as to the request for depositions subpoenas, the information sought may potentially
be obtained through trial subpoenas.
The motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
The
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery.
Moving Party to provide
notice.