On 04/02/2018 LARRY GREGORY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WALGREENS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****0309
04/02/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
GREGORY LARRY
DAGO -MANAGER
DOES 1 TO 25
WALGREENS
SIMON DIEGO R
MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.
DOLLISON ALLAN LEE ESQ.
LEIBL LOREN SIDNEY
LEIBL LOREN SIDNEY ESQ.
MIRETSKY MICHAEL JOSEPH ESQ.
12/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) - UNCONDITIONA...)
8/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
3/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING AN MSC
2/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
2/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
12/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION, FILED BY PLAINTIFF, TO CON...)
12/5/2019: Statement of the Case
12/5/2019: Jury Instructions
12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ. IN SUPPORT
11/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY;) OF 11/01/2019
9/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE T...)
9/19/2019: Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
9/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND REOPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ.
9/9/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EXPERT OPINIONS OFFERED ON PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
10/10/2018: Proof of Personal Service -
10/15/2018: Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons
10/29/2018: Answer
4/2/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - /Addendum
Hearing04/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (- Unconditional Notice Files 09/04/2020) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Unconditiona...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Settlement (Unconditional); Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 4:10 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Vacating the 05/15/2020 Final Status Confere...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketStipulation and Order (STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER); Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Allan Lee Dollison, Esq. (Attorney)
DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)
DocketAnswer; Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)
DocketOther - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)
DocketProof Of Service Of Summons; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum
DocketComplaint
DocketSummons; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC700309 Hearing Date: November 01, 2019 Dept: 2
Gregory v. Walgreens
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, filed on 10/11/19, is GRANTED. Discovery is reopened. The discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be calculated based on the present trial date.
TIMELINESS
Defendant first argues that the Court should not consider the motion because Plaintiff did not give sufficient notice of motion. Defendant is correct that notice was insufficient; Plaintiff was required to file and serve the motion on 10/4/19 to allow for 16 court days of notice plus five calendar days for service by mail. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Plaintiff served the motion on 10/11/19.
However, a party may be deemed to have waived any irregularity in the notice by appearing at the hearing, opposing the motion, not asking for a continuance and not demonstrating any prejudice resulting from the shortened notice. Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 690.
The purpose of the notice period is to allow the responding party to file an opposition. If an opposition is filed and no prejudice is shown, then the purpose of the notice requirements is met. The defect is waived. Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 333, 342-343.
Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the defective notice. Defendant filed an opposition, which the court has considered. Defendant has thus waived any objection on timeliness grounds, and the Court considers the motion on the merits.
MERITS
The court may, in its discretion, grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2024.050(a).
Among the factors to be considered in granting relief are the diligence or lack of diligence in seeking discovery, the necessity for the discovery, the likelihood that permitting discovery will prevent the case from going to trial, and resulting prejudice to the opposing party, among other things. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2024.050.
Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient diligence in conducting discovery. Delays in the discovery process are largely of the Defendant’s making. Plaintiff served written discovery on 3/29/19, but Defendant did not serve verified responses until 8/12/19. Declaration of Alan Dollison, ¶ 5. Defendant did not respond to Request for Production of Documents until 8/28/19. Id.
The court’s file reflects that Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Request for Production of Documents on 8/28/19. It was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to set depositions after discovery responses were received. Defendant’s 5-month delay in providing verified responses resulted in the delay in setting the necessary depositions.
Defendant states that on 8/12/19 Plaintiff served Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable. Opposition, Declaration of Michael Miretsky, ¶ 12. The deposition was scheduled for 8/29/19, before discovery cutoff on 9/2/19. Motion, 5:20. However, Defendant failed to produce its witness, but offered dates in September, indicating a willingness to permit the depositions despite discovery cutoff, which undermines Defendant’s claim of prejudice. Opposition, Ex. C.
Plaintiff will suffer prejudice as he has not been able to complete discovery due to the Defendant’s delay in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court thus finds good cause to reopen discovery so that the necessary depositions may be taken. Discovery is reopened, and the discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be calculated based on the current trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.