CIV511997 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DOMINIQUE BLACK

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY DOMINIQUE BLACK
JEREMY SUGERMAN PRO/PER

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-complainant Black’s motion to extend discovery to allow further expert disclosure and to continue expert deposition date is DENIED. Black has not demonstrated that discovery should be reopened under CCP § 2024.050. Since at least April 2017, Black has known that Mr. Hess would refuse to testify for Black unless he paid his outstanding bills. [Sugerman Decl., Ex. F, G] The fact that Mr. Hess was not retained is a result of Black’s failure to sign a retainer agreement. This was clearly communicated to Black. [Id.] Further, Black’s claim that Mr. Smoot never provided his client file appears to be a misrepresentation. The file appears to have been provided to Black in December 2017. [Sugerman Decl., ¶ 26, Ex. N, p.3] Even if the file had not been provided, however, this would not have prevented Black from knowing that Mr. Hess would not testify unless his bills were paid. Black acknowledges that he failed to submit a meet and confer declaration, as required by CCP § 2024.050.

Further, even if Black could establish that discovery should be reopened under CCP § 2024.050, he has failed to show “exceptional circumstances” under CCP § 2034.610 to permit a motion to amend his expert witness designation following the time limit for completion of discovery. Additionally, Black has not identified an additional expert witness, as required by CCP § 2034.620, and, for the reasons set forth above, he has not demonstrated that the failure to call an additional witness is the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Cross-defendant FFIC’s request for sanctions in the amount of $7,862.50 is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2034.630, and shall be paid on or before 9-28-18.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.