Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01061, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01061    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On June 27, 2024, defendants Joanna Esquivel, Juan Molina, and Maria De Jesus Meza Hernandez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to: (1) compel the deposition of the person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) from Plaintiff’s last employer, Professional Security Consultants (“PSC”) and (2) reopen discovery for the purposes of conducting this deposition. The motion is unopposed.

First, with respect to the order compelling PSC’s PMK, it does not appear that an order is needed because defense counsel declares that PSC is willing to produce a witness at a later date. (Motion, Skalsky Decl., ¶ 9.) Also, PSC was not given notice of this motion because it is not named in the notice of motion or included in the proof of service. Accordingly, insofar as the motion seeks an order compelling PSC’s attendance, the motion is DENIED.

Second, with respect to an order reopening discovery, the Court must consider “ 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).)

Here, Defendants argue that PSC’s deposition is necessary because PSC is Plaintiff’s former employer and Plaintiff has not provided any evidence beyond conclusory deposition testimony and discovery responses to support his claim for lost income and future lost wages. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and it does not appear that reopening discovery for the limited purpose of conducting this agreed-upon deposition will prevent the case from going to trial on January 13, 2025, as scheduled. Therefore, even though Defendants did not provide any reason for why PSC’s deposition was not sought and completed earlier, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and reopens discovery for the limited purpose of conducting the deposition of PSC’s PMK on the categories identified in Defendant’s Exhibit A. The deposition shall be completed by December 13, 2024.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (c).)

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 14th day of November 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.