Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2019-01113513, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Defendants’ (House of Blues Anaheim Restaurant Corporation erroneously sued as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and House of Blues Anaheim) Motion to Reopen Discovery (Motion), filed on 7-19-22 under ROA No. 346, is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states, “(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. [¶] (c) 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.”
The Motion seeks to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of updating discovery regarding damages as to Plaintiff’s (Jeanne Rice) medical and economic condition. The Motion states, “. . . by the time the current trial date arrives, an entire year will have gone by without any further update or evidence of Plaintiff’s medical and economic condition—both highly relevant to her claim for damages.” (Motion; 4:23-25.)
The parties have sufficiently met and conferred. (Weiss Decl., ¶¶ 9, 13, 14, and Exhibits A and D.)
The parties do not dispute that the discovery closed on 7-21-21. (Motion; 4:21 and Plaintiff’s Opposition (Opposition) to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery (Opposition), filed on 7-13-22 under ROA No. 337 at 1:11-12.)
The action was originally set for trial on 8-20-21. (Weiss Decl., ¶ 3; 8-20-21 Minute Order.) The court continued the trial to 9-17-21. (8-20-21 Minute Order.) On 9-17-21, Plaintiff’s counsel was not ready for trial and the trial was continued to 10-29-21. (9-17-21 Minute Order.) On 10-29-21, the trial was continued to 3-11-22 pursuant to a party’s motion. (Weiss Decl., ¶¶ 4 and 5; 10-29-21 Minute Order.) On 3-14-22, the court placed the action on the trailing trial list. (3-14-22 Minute Order.) When the case as not assigned to a trial court, the court set the case for trial on 8-26-22. “HOB was well and ready to proceed to rial with the evidence then available for the initial trial date.” (Weiss Decl., ¶ 8.) “However, by the time the current trial date arrives, an entire year will have gone by without any further update or evidence of Plaintiff’s medical and economic condition—both highly relevant to her claim for damages.” (Motion; 4:22-25.) On 5-27-22 under ROA No. 327, Defendants brought an ex parte application to reopen discovery. On 5-31-22, the court set this Motion for hearing on 7-26-22. (5-31-22 Minute Order.)
The Opposition states, “Currently, the trial is set to begin on August 26, 2022. The hearing on the Motion is on July 26, 2022. Even if Defendant’s Motion is granted and discovery requests are propounded on the same day, Plaintiff’s deadline to serve responses . . . would be August 30, 2022.” (Opposition; 4:27-5:1.)
The above evidence sufficiently shows the necessity for the discovery. Defendant has also shown that it was diligent in completing discovery but due to trial continuances, that were of no fault of Defendant, the evidence of Plaintiff’s medical and economic condition needs to be updated. Defendant seeks discovery limited to an update to Plaintiff’s medical and economic condition and will not prejudice Plaintiff. The court notes that Plaintiff has received the proposed discovery requests. (Youmtobian Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, and Exhibits A, B, and C.) The Opposition does not explain why Plaintiffs need 30 days to respond to these discovery requests since they only seek an update as to damages related to Plaintiff’s medical and economic condition. The requested discovery should not affect the trial date of 8-26-22.
Based on the above, the court GRANTS Defendants’ (House of Blues Anaheim Restaurant Corporation erroneously sued as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and House of Blues Anaheim) Motion to Reopen Discovery filed on 7-19-22 under ROA No. 346. The court does not impose a monetary sanction because Plaintiff was substantially justified in opposing this Motion due to the proximity of the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (c).)
Defendant is to give notice.