Olga Gutierrez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC573345

Hearing Date: March 7, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel further responses to discovery

Plaintiff Olga Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court to compel Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production served on December 14, 2017.

Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further responses to discovery on February 6, 2018. Defendant filed an opposition on February 22, 2018. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is denied without prejudice.

On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application to continue trial, from February 21, 2018 to May 8, 2018. The Court granted the continuance but stated that “Discovery is not continued EXCEPT as it relates to the outstanding expert depositions and related motions.” (1/31/18 Minute Order.)

Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020, “a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings,” unless a motion to reopen discovery is filed and granted pursuant to CCP § 2024.050. (See also Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)

In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588, the court held that, “[b]y simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court ‘transgresse[d] the confines of the applicable principles of law’ . . . and thereby abused its discretion.” (citing, in part, City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297.) Applying Pelton-Shepherd Industries here, although the trial was continued to May 8, 2018, discovery is currently closed, and it would constitute an abuse of discretion for this Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion without first deciding whether to reopen discovery.

Accordingly, the court hereby denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production without prejudice for Plaintiff to bring a new motion to compel further responses after first obtaining an order reopening discovery, either by way of stipulation, noticed motion, or ex-parte application.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DATED: March 7, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court