Absent an extension, discovery proceedings must be completed within thirty (30) days before the initial trial date (the "discovery period"). Discovery motions must be completed fifteen (15) days before the initial trial date. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a).)
Absent an extension, a postponement or continuance of the trial date does not extend the discovery period. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(b).)
The discovery period can be extended or discovery can be reopened either by agreement of the parties, or in certain circumstances upon a party's motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.050; 2024.060.)
In no case does an extension of the discovery date operate to obligate a court to postpone or continue the trial date. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.060.)
The Parties to an action can agree to extend the time for discovery or discovery motions, or to re-open discovery if the trial date is postponed, provided:
(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.060
After the 30-day discovery period, any party can motion to complete discovery.(Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).)
Alternatively, any party can motion the court to order that the discovery period be extended so that the discovery period cutoff date is closer to the initial or postponed trial date. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).)
The motion must be accompanied by a "meet and confer declaration." (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).) A meet and confer declaration must allege "facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informally resolving all of the motion's issues." (Code Civ. Pro. § 2016.040(a).) More specifically, the declaration “requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431.)
The court can hear a discovery motion after the discovery period cutoff date, but only with a motion to compel that discovery be extended under Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050. (Peltun-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App,4th 1568.) The court cannot convert a motion for leave to amend a reply into a motion to extend discovery. (Id.)
The court may decide to grant the motion in its discretion. " (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).) Among the factors it may consider are:
(Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(b); see also People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th.)
It is an abuse of discretion for the court to grant a motion to compel without the parties addressing, and the court considering the relevant factors identified in CCP §2024.050. (See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)
The Court must impose a monetary sanction on a party who unsuccessfully makes or oppose a motion to extend or reopen discovery, unless:
Defendants also had substantial justification because the court granted their request to continue trial and extend discovery cut-off, but due to extenuating circumstances, did not set a new trial date until 4/21/20. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
As the California Supreme Court has noted: [B]efore parties may seek assistance from the court to resolve disputes or extend discovery, they must meet and confer. Moreover, the trial court “shall” impose monetary sanctions against a party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion involving discovery “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024, subd.
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties agreed to extend discovery deadlines to facilitate a mandatory settlement conference in December 2019, and Defendants served their objections and verified responses on March 2, 2020. (Vu Dec., ¶10, Exs. 11- 16). The parties agreed to extend the deadline to file the motions to compel further from April 16, 2020 to May 25, 2020. (See Vu Decl. ¶ 11.) On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the two motions to compel further.
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Leon David Franco MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Shahin Melamed OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Leon David Franco TRIAL DATE: August 17, 2021 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date OPPOSITION: None as of August 17, 2020 REPLY: No opposition filed. TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion to reopen expert witness discovery is GRANTED. The court continues the discovery cutoff date for expert discovery by all parties to February 28, 2011.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The court, however, denied the request to extend discovery. On February 19, 2020, per the Joint Stipulation and Order of the parties, the court continued the trial date and all deadlines related to the trial, including discovery related deadlines and expert discovery deadlines, to May 12, 2020.[1] On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. On March 13, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to shorten time to hear Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery.
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to continue trial and extend discovery, but Plaintiffs’ counsel would not stipulate. Id. paragraph 8. Plaintiffs have not shown any prejudice that would result from the reopening of discovery. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Los Angeles County, CA
Cannata’s Ex Parte Application to Extend Discovery Deadlines on February 4, 2020; and 2) Frank J. Cannata’s IDC Brief held on February 7, 2020. As these materials reflect court records, which are properly subject to judicial notice, the court grants LTWR’s request for judicial notice as to the existence of these documents. The truth of allegations made in these court documents are not judicially noticeable.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court did not extend discovery and motion cutoff dates, meaning that the discovery motion cutoff date remained on March 27, 2020. On February 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and extended the deadline for all expert discovery and motions related to expert discovery to be based on the July 13, 2020 trial date.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White
Los Angeles County, CA
Also noticed for hearing was plaintiffs’ motion to continue the trial previously set for June 29, 2020, to continue the pretrial conference and mandatory settlement conference, and to extend discovery and motion deadlines accordingly. This motion is MOOT in light of the Notice of Trial Setting Conference filed on May 28, 2020, which vacated the trial, pretrial conference, and mandatory settlement conference pursuant to the May 6, 2020 General Order re COVID-l9 Emergency Order Regarding Complex Cases.
Santa Clara County, CA
Chavez bc575549 Hearing on the Motion to Extend Discovery Cut off Date is continued to 5/6/2020 at 1:30 pm. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing. The Court is ordered to give notice.
Los Angeles County, CA
Chavez - BC574549 Hearing on the Motion to Extend Discovery Cut off Date is continued to 5/6/2020 at 1:30 pm. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing. The Court is ordered to give notice.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Given this scheduling conflict, the lack of a voluntary agreement to extend discovery, and the likelihood that the physicians will have limited availability for a deposition, the Court finds good cause for a short continuance.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Sacramento County, CA
The Court intends to rule as follows; Moving Defendants' motion to continue trial and reopen/extend discovery cutoff dates is GRANTED. Moving Defendants have shown good cause for such an order pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 and CCP section 2024.050. The trial will be continued to 5/25/20, or later date that is convenient for the Court and the parties. The discovery cutoff dates will be tethered to the new trial date. Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.
Ventura County, CA
SAHAGUN #14 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Emuakpoyeri Ojose’s motion to extend discovery cut off is DENIED. Plaintiff to give NOTICE. As an initial matter, although the motion was filed by both Defendants Emuakpoyeri Bobbie Ojose and Maureen Ojose, the motion is only signed by Emuakpoyeri. Because Emuakpoyeri is not a licensed attorney, he cannot represent another individual in court. Therefore, the court will construe the motion as one being brought by Emuakpoyeri only.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Request to Extend Discovery Deadline Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(a), discovery closes 30 days before the initial date set for trial, which in this case was on September 25, 2019. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b), a trial continuance does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings, and absent a stipulation, such a request must be made on noticed motion. Alvarado's motion includes a request to reopen discovery until thirty days before the new date set for trial.
Contract
Breach
Sacramento County, CA
Plaintiff says it was a quid pro quo for an agreement not to extend discovery past the January 2018 trial date. But again, there is no term of the stipulation to that effect. Further, while the “bid and ask” of the 2017 stipulation are not explained in detail, it was evidently plaintiff, not just defendants, who was seeking to extend the discovery cutoff date to a time after the original June 2017 trial date (though it may be inferred that defendants were fine with that extension too).
Contra Costa County, CA
. § 2024.020) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to hear a discovery motion after the discovery cutoff date when Defendant has not moved to extend discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(a) either prior to or simultaneously with the instant motion. (See Peltun-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v.
Marin County, CA
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE AND COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jenny Solis, et al. RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Cesar Julio Blanco and Christian Arturo Limon. PROOF OF SERVICE: ANALYSIS By way of the August 27, 2019 order, the Court permitted this motion to be heard beyond the discovery and hearing cut-off date. Accordingly, the only issue to be resolved is the motion to compel deposition.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 26, 2019, Bijan filed: (1) a Partial Request for Dismissal, dismissing without prejudice only the abuse of process cause of action; and (2) this motion to reopen discover or extend discovery. No opposition has been filed. Summary of Issues Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, Bijan moves for an order to reopen discovery or, alternatively, to extend time to complete discovery and related motions. A proposed order is attached to the motion. ANALYSIS A.
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Preference in Trial Setting and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off filed by Plaintiffs TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs’ motion for preference in trial setting is granted. Plaintiffs have established that the medical condition of plaintiff DOUGLAS STROBEL raises substantial medical doubt that he will survive beyond six months, and thus, the interests of justice will be served by granting preference. Therefore, the court grants preference under CCP §36(d). Counsel are to appear to set a trial date.
Solano County, CA
BC679406 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS YONG JIN LEE ET AL Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Extend Discovery Cut-Off, Motion and Expert Disclosure Dates TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Trial is continued to February 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The FSC is continued to January 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, decisions about whether to grant a continuance or extend discovery must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. What is required is balance.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer by obtaining a stipulation to extend discovery cutoff, but Defendant refused. Reply Declaration of Ayk Arutyunyan, ¶ 10. While Defendant makes much of the fact that Plaintiff delayed in initiating discovery, Defendant concedes that he changed his liability position two months before trial and will now be disputing liability. Motion, Ex 1. As such, the deposition of a witness passenger in Defendant’s vehicle is necessary.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiff’s Expert Witness List and Extend Discovery Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery, filed on 4/24/19, is GRANTED. In granting the requested relief, the court takes into account certain factors: the extent to which the opposing parties relied on the list of expert witnesses and after determining that the opposing parties will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620.
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION CONTINUED FROM 05/28/2019 - NO CHANGE ON TENTATIVE Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiff’s Expert Witness List and Extend Discovery Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery, filed on 4/24/19, is GRANTED.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
