SHAWN JOYNER VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC599994    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Relevant Background Concerning Discovery Dispute

The discovery cut-off date in this case was originally scheduled for 10/18/17. The parties agreed, on numerous occasions, to continue the trial date without extending the discovery cut-off. On 10/10/19, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial date; the Court’s minute order makes clear that the discovery cut-off will run from the new trial date. The same day, Defendants gave notice of the order; their notice indicated the Court continued the trial date, FSC, AND discovery cut-off.

On 12/12/19, the parties participated in an IDC concerning Defendants’ requests to move forward with Plaintiff’s deposition, IME, RFP, and other written discovery. Plaintiff argued discovery was cut off as of 10/18/17, and all of the outstanding discovery was improper. The Court, in its minute order, stated:

Re-opening discovery could have been an error. At this juncture, the Court has no recollection of

the discussions held two months ago, other than there was a stipulation to continue because

Plaintiff needed to re-designate an expert. In fact, the Court learned today Plaintiff filed an

Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Ruling on 11/8/19, however no motion was filed with this

Court to correct a clerical error, misunderstanding of the stipulation, or for reconsideration.

…

Whether it was appropriate at the time or not, discovery and motions cut-off extensions ordered

October 10, 2019, are still the law of this case. Plaintiff’s claim discovery closed October 18,

2017, is disingenuous because it was opened on June 3 and July 26, 2019, for Plaintiff to depose

two witnesses, and clearly opened recently for Plaintiff to designate two additional experts.

Discovery between the parties has been reciprocal all through 2017 to 2019, and most of the

continuances in 2018 were to depose the bus driver who was on medical leave.

Even if discovery was closed, Defendant has made a strong showing to re-open it based upon the expanded injuries claimed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not been deposed, submitted to an IME, provided updated medical records, nor

responded to form interrogatories. Unless and until this Court’s October 10, 2019, order gets

modified, discovery for both sides remains open tracking the trial date of February 19, 2020.

2. Matters on Calendar Today

On calendar today are (a) Plaintiff’s motion to correct or modify the 10/10/19 order, and (b) Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to complete discovery.

3. Motion to Correct or Modify

Plaintiff moves to correct or modify the Court’s 10/10/19 order, contending it appears to have been entered as a result of an error either on the part of Plaintiff’s attorney’s junior staff member who appeared at the hearing or the Clerk. Plaintiff contends the Court’s stated reasons for re-opening discovery in its 12/12/19 minute order are incorrect. Plaintiff argues the parties never agreed to re-open discovery, and any order re-opening discovery was erroneous and should be set aside. Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP §473(b) and (d).

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing §473 is not the proper vehicle for the motion, which should have been a motion for reconsideration. Defendants argue the parties agreed to the re-opening of discovery, and Defendants relied on the agreement. Finally, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s recent statement that he has been seeing a pain management doctor and received a new treatment is sufficient to re-open discovery in its own right.

CCP §473(b) provides, “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Court finds §473(b) is an appropriate vehicle for the relief, as Plaintiff seeks relief based on the contention that his attorney and/or the clerk made a mistake in connection with the stipulation. While the mandatory relief provision only applies to defaults and dismissals, the discretionary provision contains no such limitation.

Despite the fact that the vehicle is appropriate, the Court finds the additional discovery is necessary in light of Plaintiff’s addition of a pain management expert. Plaintiff argues he was not obligated to disclose this expert earlier. This may be true; however, once he did disclose the expert, a need arose for Defendants to conduct discovery concerning these new allegations. The motion to vacate or correct the order is therefore denied.

4. Motion to Compel

Because the motion to vacate is denied, the motion to compel is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer forthwith to determine scheduling details. Responses must be served within ten days, as the trial date is pending on 2/19/20. No sanctions are sought or imposed.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC599994    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

The parties have three motions to compel on calendar on 1/14/20 (one at 10:00 a.m. and two at 1:30 p.m.) and a motion to vacate prior order on calendar 1/16/20. The four motions present opposing issues, and the Court wishes to hear all of the motions together. The 1/14/20 hearings are therefore continued to 1/16/20 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3, to be heard contemporaneously with the scheduled 1/16/20 motion. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.