This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/19/2019 at 00:45:10 (UTC).

BLANCA MARCELA GARCIA VS I T NELLA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/12/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by BLANCA MARCELA GARCIA against I T NELLA INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7517

  • Filing Date:

    03/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

GARCIA BLANCA MARCELA

Defendants and Respondents

I.T. NELLA INC.

AKBARI KAMRAN

DOES 1-50

GHAZARIAN VAHEH

 

Court Documents

Notice

11/14/2018: Notice

Motion for Leave to Amend

12/28/2018: Motion for Leave to Amend

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/28/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Reply

1/29/2019: Reply

Notice

2/8/2019: Notice

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/6/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration

3/6/2019: Declaration

Opposition

4/25/2019: Opposition

Brief

5/8/2019: Brief

Minute Order

5/15/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/21/2019: Notice of Ruling

Amended Complaint

6/12/2019: Amended Complaint

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

7/17/2019: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

3/12/2018: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PERSONAL INJURIES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

3/12/2018: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PERSONAL INJURIES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/17/2019
  • Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Amended Complaint (- 2nd); Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff); Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Complaint (2nd); Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Kamran Akbari (Defendant); Vaheh Ghazarian (Defendant); I.T. Nella, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Claims for Punitive Damages in the First Amended Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike Claims for Punitive Damages in th...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Brief (Reply Brief In Support Of The Motion); Filed by Kamran Akbari (Defendant); Vaheh Ghazarian (Defendant); I.T. Nella, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Opposition (to Defendant's Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages); Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Declaration ( Declaration of Brian D Murphy); Filed by I.T. Nella, Inc. (Defendant); Kamran Akbari (Defendant); Vaheh Ghazarian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by I.T. Nella, Inc. (Defendant); Kamran Akbari (Defendant); Vaheh Ghazarian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 04/04/2018
  • Answer; Filed by I.T. Nella, Inc. (Defendant); Kamran Akbari (Defendant); Vaheh Ghazarian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Blanca Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PERSONAL INJURIES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697517    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

On March 12, 2018, plaintiff Blanca Marcela Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants I.T. Nella, Kamran Akbari, and Vaheh Ghazarian (collectively, “Defendants”) relating to an October 28, 2016 motor vehicle collision. On August 22, 2019, Defendant obtained new counsel, and on August 23, 2019, Defendants’ new counsel filed an ex parte application seeking a trial continuance from September 12, 2019 to December 10, 2019, which was granted. The ex parte application also sought to continue the fact discovery cutoff date, but because fact discovery had already closed, the Court informed the parties that a noticed motion was needed to reopen fact discovery. The Court based the expert deposition and motion cutoff dates on the new trial date. On November 8, 2019, Defendants applied ex parte for a trial continuance so that the Court could hear a motion to reopen fact discovery. The Court continued trial to January 16, 2020. In its minute order, the Court questioned why Defendants had not moved to reopen discovery earlier when Defendants had notice on August 23, 2019 that a noticed motion would be necessary. Defendants finally filed a motion to reopen discovery on November 7, 2019.

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. (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 seek to reopen discovery because they want to depose Plaintiff for the third time. Defendants do not specify the specific questions they wish to ask that were not previously asked or why those questions were not asked in the previous two depositions. Defendants had sufficient time after Plaintiff’s July 2018 and April 2019 depositions to move to compel if Defendants believed Plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed Plaintiff not to answer certain questions. Likewise, to the extent Defendants are complaining about incomplete responses to interrogatories in May 2018, they had plenty of time to compel further responses. A motion to reopen discovery is not a substitute for a motion to compel.

Defendants move to reopen discovery because, they contend based on their independent investigation, Plaintiff did not answer truthfully during her two depositions in July 2018 and April 2019 and in her responses to interrogatories in May 2018. If that is the case, they can seek to use the information they collected to impeach Plaintiff at trial. A motion to reopen discovery is not a substitute for a motion to reopen a deposition. Even if the Court were to reopen discovery, Defendants have not shown good cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 for deposing Plaintiff for a third time.

Defendants state they want to conduct third-party discovery to obtain records from “additional, undisclosed treaters.” (Mot. at 7.) They do not state who those treaters are or why they believe the treaters have relevant information.

Defendants also complain that they have five expert depositions yet to take and the experts might reveal new fact discovery to pursue. Defendants have time to take those expert depositions before the January 16, 2020 trial, and a known danger of taking expert depositions at the last minute is that it will be too late to take further fact discovery after the depositions.

Defendants state they want to depose Plaintiff’s supervisor, Yolanda Lucio. Defendants complains Ms. Lucio evaded service of a subpoena ten times. Unsuccessful attempts to subpoena a third party is not a reason to reopen discovery, and there is no reason to think that reopening discovery will lead to the successful service of the subpoena. Defendants also want to depose Plaintiff’s coworker Rosie Guerrero. They do not explain why they did not seek to depose her before the cutoff date.

Defendants argue prior counsel served some written discovery late so that responses were due after the fact discovery cutoff date, and that Plaintiff objected on that ground. Serving discovery too late is not a basis for reopening discovery.

In sum, Defendants did not show the necessity for the additional discovery or diligence in pursuing it. The gist of Defendants’ argument is that prior counsel was not diligent in discovery, failed to move to compel, failed to take adequate depositions, and failed to serve timely written discovery. But lack of diligence by prior counsel is not a reason to reopen discovery and allow a do-over. In addition, current defense counsel waited 2.5 months to file the motion to reopen trial after the Court stated in the August 23, 2019 minute order that a noticed motion was needed to reopen fact discovery. And if the motion to reopen were granted, trial would need to be continued yet again.

The 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 SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.