Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV31316, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff Lida Khorsandi filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Susan L. Chobanian, M.D.

At the August 26, 2024 Final Status Conference, the Court continued the trial date to April 28, 2025 and reset only expert-related discovery and motion deadlines.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking the depositions of Defendant’s undisclosed witnesses.

“On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings . . . or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) In considering whether to grant discretionary relief, the Court should consider the necessity and reasons for the discovery, the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking discovery, the reasons that discovery was not completed earlier, any likelihood that permitting discovery will prevent the case from going to trial or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, the likelihood that permitting discovery would prejudice any party, and the length of time that has elapsed between any previous trial date and the current trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of Mardiros Mihranian M.D. (Motion at p. 7.) Plaintiff first learned about this witness on July 26, 2024, when Defendant sent an updated draft of the proposed joint trial documents. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also seeks to take the deposition of Sousse Yaacoubian, who was first disclosed on Defendant’s August 9, 2024 updated witness list. (Id. at pp. 7-8.)

At the August 26, 2024 Final Status Conference, the Court asked whether the parties needed discovery and motion deadlines reset. (Motion at p. 9; Coleman Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 8 at p. 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated that “there’s one or two depositions that are implicated by the motions in limine. Now that we have time, we can just agree among ourselves, and can let those go forward without opening discovery fully.” (Motion at p. 9; Coleman Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 8 at p. 8.) The parties attempted to meet and confer, but they never reached an agreement about deposing the two witnesses. (See Motion at pp. 9-12.)

Defendant “does not necessarily oppose the relief plaintiff requests in her Motion, but only requests that the relief be appropriately tailored to the needs of the case.” (Opposition at p. 1.) Defendant has proposed limitations of one hour of time and only questioning about “general background, relationship to the parties, and office arrangement, configuration, equipment, and access.” (Id. at p. 2.)

Defendant has not shown why such limitations are necessary. As Plaintiff notes, “if Defendant had timely disclosed the witnesses she subsequently included on the witness list, Plaintiff would have been entitled to notice and take their depositions without any limitations.” (Reply at p. 2.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff has engaged in bad-faith tactics or abusive questioning at other depositions.

The motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff may depose Mardiros Mihranian M.D. and Sousse Yaacoubian within 45 days. All other non-expert discovery remains closed.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court