Case Number: BC510993 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: O

F.M. v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (BC510993)

Plaintiff F.M.’s MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESS NELLA TRAN

Respondent: Defendant County of Los Angeles

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff F.M.’s motion to reopen discovery to take the deposition of witness Nella Tran is DENIED.

On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed, or a discovery motion to be heard, after the “cut-off” dates above; or, it may reopen discovery after the trial has been continued to a new date. (CCP § 2024.050(a); see Pelton Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) The motion should be accompanied by declarations covering the factors identified below, plus facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally. (CCP 2024.050(a).)

In exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion, the court must take into consideration any relevant matter, including the following: the necessity and reasons for the additional discovery sought; the diligence or lack of diligence by the party seeking discovery, and the reasons why the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion heard earlier; whether permitting the discovery or granting the discovery motion will likely prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar or prejudice any party; and the length of time elapsed between any date previously set and the date presently set for trial. (CCP § 2024.050(b); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351–1352.)

The court finds Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking discovery. Plaintiff filed the instant action on 6/4/13, but did not seek the instant discovery during the time allowed. While taking into consideration the 120-day stay, this court continued trial as well as the discovery cut-offs multiple times. Plaintiff did not notice the deposition of Nella Tran for a date within the discovery cut-off.

Plaintiff is well aware of Nella Tran’s role in the events of this case. She has alleged that Nella is her mother, and allowed sexual perpetrators to live in their home, and subsequently caused Plaintiff’s injury. This is not a situation where Plaintiff was unaware of Nella’s role. In fact, she is a central witness in Plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff contends that she relied on Defendant’s notice of deposition of Nella Tran, and did not anticipate that Defendant would take the deposition off-calendar. Such is Defendant’s choice, and has no bearing on Plaintiff’s litigation duties. If Plaintiff desired to take the deposition of Nella Tran, Plaintiff should have noticed her own deposition.

Motion is DENIED.