Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV01711, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01711    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On January 14, 2020, plaintiff Cynthia Dawson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Armando Aguilar (“Aguilar”) and A and A Trucking. Plaintiff alleges that on April 15, 2019, she and Aguilar were involved in an automobile collision on the I-210 westbound freeway at the Fair Oaks exit in Pasadena, California.

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Lee Ramirez (“Ramirez”) as Doe 1.

On January 15, 2021, and April 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and again amended it to add Ramirez as Doe 1.

On January 17, 2024, Aguilar, A and A Trucking, and Ramirez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to reopen discovery. Defendants argue that they must depose Plaintiff a second time as well as other witnesses which they contend were not identified until after the discovery cut-off. Defendants also state that there is a need to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records because she has continued to treat after discovery closed.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 11, 2024. It was most recently continued on July 27, 2023, when the Court was informed by Defendants’ counsel at the time that they would be substituting out of the case. Current defense counsel filed an association of attorney on October 4, 2023, and trial was scheduled for March 11, 2024, at a trial setting conference held on October 19, 2023. The trial date has previously been continued eight times.

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (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 demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) 

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (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, and (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, subd. (b).)

Defendants argue that good cause exists to reopen discovery because new witnesses have been identified. Defendants list 14 different individuals, including Plaintiff’s friends, family members, children, the investigating officer, and non-retained physicians. Defendants provide no evidence that these individuals were not disclosed earlier and notably does not state when they were identified, other than to say that it was “after the discovery cut-off.” (Motion, p. 3; Reply, p.  3.)

Defendants also argue that discovery should be reopened because Plaintiff is continuing treatment and was last deposed on August 17, 2020. Defendants request the opportunity to depose Plaintiff about any treatment she may have received, including treatment through at least May 2023. Plaintiff’s continuing treatment is not unexpected in a personal injury case such as this one and it is unlikely that trial will be able to commence as planned if discovery is reopened.

Defendants have failed to show that they acted with diligence. After filing a notice of association on October 4, 2023, Defendants waited two months to file an ex parte application to reopen discovery in December. When informed that a noticed motion was required, Defendants waited another month to file this motion, which is unsupported by any substantive evidence. Moreover, as Plaintiff points out, it is implausible that Defendant will be able to complete 15 depositions and obtain records through deposition subpoenas without needing another trial continuance. Given that trial has already been continued eight times, the Court is not inclined to grant a ninth continuance.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 14th day of February 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.