Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC696597, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC696597    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

          On March 10, 2018, Plaintiff Erica Prieto (“Plaintiff”) brought this premises liability action against Defendants Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. and Scott David Lucas (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that on June 24, 2017, she slipped and fell on a “wet and slick” driveway owned and/or maintained by Defendants.

          Trial is currently scheduled for February 3, 2023. On August 11, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial, but decided not to continue discovery—keeping discovery deadlines relative to August 15, 2022, instead.  

          Defendants brought this motion to reopen discovery on December 6, 2022. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 3, 2022. No reply has been filed as of January 11, 2022.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 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 the trial of the action…a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(a).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(b).)

III.      DISCUSSION

Weighing the factors provided by Section 2024.050(b), Defendants have not met their burden of showing good cause to reopen discovery. First, Defendants offer minimal justification for additional discovery. Defendants argue they need to retain two new experts. Indeed, Defendants may be slightly prejudiced by not having a standard of care expert and medical billing expert at trial, but Defendants have already retained additional experts and thus prejudice to Defendants is not severe. Defendants also argue they need to serve written discovery to determine whether Plaintiff has undergone further medical treatment since discovery closed. The argument is not persuasive. With every personal injury case there will inevitably and unavoidably be a period between the close of discovery and trial where a plaintiff could possibly undergo further medical treatment. Defendants have had years to serve written discovery.

Second, Defendants provide no explanation for why their desired experts were not retained earlier. In fact, Defendants admit that they served an updated Designation of Experts and identified two new experts without realizing discovery was closed. (Motion, p. 4.) Defendants likewise fail to explain why the written discovery they seek was not served on Plaintiff earlier, or how reopening discovery would eliminate Plaintiff’s ability to undergo further treatment once discovery closes again.

Third, permitting discovery to reopen will almost certainly prevent this case from going to trial on February 3, 2023. More significantly, reopening discovery could potentially lead to Plaintiff’s action being dismissed under Section 583.310. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310 [“An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.”].) Plaintiff brought this action on March 1, 2018. Reopening discovery would unfairly expose Plaintiff to the possibility of trial not commencing by March 1, 2023.

Finally, trial in this case has been significantly delayed. The original September 8, 2019, trial date was continued at least eight times to December 8, 2022. Trial is now scheduled for February 3, 2023. Trial will not be continued again absent a showing of good cause. Defendants motion does not meet that burden and is therefore denied.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Defendants Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. and Scott David Lucas’s motion to reopen discovery is DENIED.

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.

      Dated this 17th day of January 2023