Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV24719, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24719    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff Joshua Payton (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendants Geneva Smith (“Smith”) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a Public Entity ("Metro"): When Plaintiff attempted to board a Metro bus, Smith “abruptly drove off,” causing Plaintiff to fall. As a result, the bus ran over Plaintiff’s legs, requiring immediate medical attention.

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for:

1.   Motor Vehicle,

2.   General Negligence

On September 3, 2020, Defendants filed their Answer.

On July 6, 2022, Defendant Metro filed four (4) motions to compel discovery.

On July 8, 2022, Defendant Metro one (1) motion to compel further discovery.

On July 20, 2022, Defendant Metro filed the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery” (“Motion”).

On August 11, 2022, Defendant Metro filed a “Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Reopen Discovery.”

The non-jury trial is scheduled for May 5, 2023.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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(a).)  “[A] continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings” unless a motion to reopen discovery is filed and granted pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b); Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)  CCP section 2024.050 provides that “[o]n 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a).)

“The purpose of imposing a time limit on discovery is to expedite and facilitate trial preparation and to prevent delay.  Without a cutoff date, the parties could tie up each other and the trial court in discovery and discovery disputes right up to the eve of trial or beyond. Furthermore, . . . to be effective the cutoff date must be firm or some litigants will manipulate the proceedings to avoid the cut-off date.”  (Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295.)  The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a), (b).)  In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers “any matter relevant to the leave requested,” including: 

(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).) 

A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a).)[1]

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant Metro brings forth the instant motion on the grounds that discovery is incomplete because Plaintiff “is actively being evasive in an attempt to conduct trial by ambush” as it has failed to respond to various discovery. (Motion p. 2.)

First, Defendant Metro explains that Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to Metro's Requests for admission Set Three, Requests for Production, Set Three, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Metro's Form Interrogatories, Set Three, all of which were properly served on May 25, 2022.

Second, Metro has been denied the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s father, sister,[2] and ex-girlfriend.

The deposition of Plaintiff’s father, Elarry Payton (“Payton”), is relevant because he has diabetes and has had at least one leg amputated, which goes to the issue of Plaintiff’s claim of a future amputation. (Motion p. 7.) Not only does Metro argue the deposition is relevant but despite a previously scheduled deposition that was cancelled, “Payton has not provided alterative dates . . . and Payton's whereabouts remains unknown.” (Motion p. 7.)

As for Plaintiff’s girlfriend, Ariana Bloom, her deposition is necessary and relevant because she helped take care of Plaintiff following the incident. Additionally, Plaintiff allegedly had a child with her shortly after the incident, demonstrating that Plaintiff’s social life and sex life did not suffer as a result of these injuries. (Motion p. 7.)

Third, Metro seeks to depose Plaintiff once more because since the first deposition, Plaintiff’s case and medical diagnosis have dramatically changed. (Motion p. 7.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s Mediation Brief indicates that he has been diagnosed with Regional Complex Pain Syndrome, but this is a new diagnosis and was never bought up in any discovery. (Motion p. 8.)

Here, the court agrees with Defendant Metro that re-opening discovery is necessary to facilitate trial preparation. For one, Defendant Metro has exhibited sufficient due diligence in obtaining various discovery. Rather, it appears Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests has halted Defendant Metro’s efforts. What’s more, for reasons described above, all of the discovery that Defendant Metro seeks are relevant and necessary for its defense.

To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees, no opposition has been received to explain otherwise.[3]

IV.         CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Metro’s Motion to Re-Open Discovery is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@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.