Motion to Partially Reopen Expert Discovery
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208409 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Partially Reopen Expert Discovery: Defendant, Kandi Knapp, moves pursuant to CCP § 2024.050 to re-open discovery. This matter was set pursuant to a request for order shortening time. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on June 30, 2026, but was not served and filed until July 1, 2026. Despite Defendant’s objection to the untimely filing, the Court in its discretion will consider the opposition.
Meet and Confer. CCP § 2024.050 requires a motion requesting to reopen discovery be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The Declaration of Courtney Wert indicates compliance with this requirement.
Merits. CCP § 2024.050(a) provides a court with discretion to grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny such a motion the Court should consider: 1) the necessity and reason for the discovery; 2) the diligence or lack of diligence in seeking the discovery or the hearing on the discovery motion; 3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going to trial; and 4) the length of the time elapsed between any date previously set, and the date present set, for the trial of the action. CCP § 2024.050(b).
This matter arises from a car accident which resulted in the death of the decedent. The parties have stipulated to liability and the only issue remaining is the determination of damages. Among other relief, Plaintiffs are suing for future wage loss, loss of future earning capacity, and non-economic damages for loss of love, companionship, care, comfort, and guidance. Defendant states that deposing the decedent’s healthcare providers is necessary to determining the decedent’s life expectancy and thus Plaintiffs’ damages.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
While Defendant worked diligently to obtain the records from SRMC when it was discovered that the decedent was a patient there, it is unclear when the Medi-Cal records were requested and why they were not sought earlier during discovery. Defendant has not disclosed how many healthcare providers she seeks to depose or how the length of time needed to continue discovery related to these newly obtained records.
At the time this motion was set on a time shortened basis, trial was set to commence on July 7, 2026. When the order shortening time for this motion was heard, the Court alerted counsel that it was unlikely that the trial would proceed as scheduled due to the fact that the Court was engaged in another jury trial.
The Court remains engaged in the aforementioned jury trial, so the July 7, 2026, trial date has been vacated. In light of the fact that there is currently not a trial date set, permitting the additional requested discovery will not prevent the case from going to trial. Additionally, the Court finds the requested discovery is relevant to an 5
appropriate damage award given the impact decedent’s medical conditions could have on his life expectancy.
Sanctions. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,450 for atty fees and costs for bringing the motion. CCP § 2024.050(c) states that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen 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.” The Court will not impose sanctions, as, at the time Plaintiff opposed the motion, there was an upcoming trial date that Plaintiff wished to maintain. The Court finds this reason substantial justification for Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion.
The motion is GRANTED. The Court orders discovery partially reopened to allow for depositions of decedent’s health care providers at Shasta Regional Medical Center and Shasta Community Health. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
PERRY VS. FARMER