Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV37928, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37928    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Rozina Khan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 22, 2019 against Defendants Balbir Singh (“Singh”) and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon Plaintiff’s title thereto. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) constructive trust, (2) accounting, (3) conversion, and (4) quiet title. 

Singh now moves for an order continuing trial (currently set on August 24, 2022). Singh also moves to reopen discovery for the purpose of taking the depositions of Plaintiff and of other witnesses. In addition, Singh requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney. Plaintiff filed a late joinder in the motion based upon certain health issues of counsel for Plaintiff.

Discussion

A.    Motion to Continue Trial

“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

            Singh contends that a trial continuance is necessary because he is unable to properly prepare for trial due to Plaintiff’s asserted failure to produce certain documents in response to Singh’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Singh notes that pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), “[c]ircumstances that may indicate good cause [for a trial continuance] include:…(6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts…”

Singh asserts that Plaintiff identified certain documents in her supplemental responses to Singh’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, but has failed to produce such documents. Singh also asserts that Plaintiff failed to produce additional documents in response to Singh’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Mot. at p. 8:14-9:13.)

But as Singh acknowledges, the Court already ruled on November 12, 2021 that, “[t]he parties agree and the Court orders plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s demand for production of documents, set one, and to produce any responsive documents on or before January 12, 2022.” (See November 12, 2021 Minute Order.) The Court also already issued orders on two separate motions for sanctions filed by Singh that concern Plaintiff’s purported failure to produce documents in response to Singh’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Singh does not explain what further steps he proposes to take if the Court were to continue the trial date. 

            Thus, the Court does not find that that Singh has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. However, the Court does find that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance based upon the health issues experienced by his counsel 

B.    Motion to Reopen Discovery

The Discovery Act provides that, unless otherwise ordered, all discovery proceedings must be completed 30 days before the date initially set for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed after the “cut-off” date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a).) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the Court must take into consideration any relevant matter, including 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., § 2024.050(b).)

Singh seeks to reopen discovery for the purpose of taking the deposition of Plaintiff and other “witnesses.” Singh does not indicate who these unidentified “witnesses” are. As set forth above, Singh must discuss the “necessity and the reasons for the discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc.,    § 2024.050, subd. (b)(1).)

Singh asserts that “[i]t is through  Plaintiff’s refusal  to  comply  with  the  rule  of  discovery that  Defendant  was  unable  to complete his discovery before the cut-off date of November 18, 2021.” (Mot. at p. 14:5-7.) With regard to the deposition of Plaintiff, the Court agrees because the documents were produced only relatively recently.  The Court is unclear as to the need for depositions of other unidentified witnesses.   The Court will discuss the scope of discovery to be reopened with the parties at the hearing.     

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Singh has demonstrated good for reopening discovery and for that reason, the motion is granted at least in part

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Singh’s motion is granted.  The Court will discuss a new trial date with the parties at the hearing along with the issue of the scope of reopened discovery.

Singh is ordered to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  August 17, 2022                                                    

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court