O’HARA vs DHILLON, et al.

25CV001377: O'HARA vs DHILLON, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Discovery Deadline in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

25CV001377: O'HARA vs DHILLON, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Discovery Deadline in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Altria Group Distribution Company and Sahil Singh Dhillon’s (collectively, “Defendant”) Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 16, 2023. Plaintiff Mark Dennis O’Hara’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed on January 16, 2025 alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle personal injury.

The matter was previously set for trial on June 23, 2026. On June 23, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue trial over objection by Plaintiff.

This matter is currently set for trial on September 8, 2026.

Defendant’s motion was originally set to be heard on February 17, 2027, after the current trial date. On July 14, 2026, Defendant requested an order shortening time to hear the pending motion. Plaintiff opposed the ex parte application, asserting that “the underlying request to re-open discovery has no merit and should not be entertained.” (Opp’n at p. 2:4-7.) The Court heard argument from counsel regarding the ex parte application; no agreement was reached regarding the underlying request to reopen discovery or the ex parte request to shorten time. The Court advanced the hearing on the motion to be heard on August 10, 2026.

Defendant now moves to reopen “expert discovery to permit the service of a Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Information under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.220. This request arises because, after substitution of counsel, Defendant discovered that prior counsel never served a demand for the exchange of expert witness information before the original trial date. Consequently, although the parties have engaged in fact discovery, Defendant presently lacks the statutory right to obtain disclosure of Plaintiff's retained experts or opinions.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 1:22-28.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff contends that there has been insufficient demonstration of diligence because, while the attorney on this case may have changed, the case has always been within the same law firm. (Opp’n at p. 3:8-14; 5:6-15.) Further, Plaintiffs point out that, while Defendant moved to continue the trial date, it did not simultaneously seek to reopen discovery. Plaintiff also argues that reopening discovery “would substantially prejudice Plaintiff” because it “would require Plaintiff to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001377: O'HARA vs DHILLON, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Discovery Deadline in Department 8D

incur significant additional litigation expenses, including expert witness retainer fees, expert witness preparation, expert deposition costs, attorney's fees associated with preparing for and defending expert depositions, and other expenses that would not have been incurred had Defendant timely complied with the Discovery Act.” (Opp’n at p. 6:2- 24.) Plaintiff also contends it is prejudiced because “Plaintiff has prepared this matter under the understanding that Defendant would not be entitled to obtain Plaintiff’s expert opinions through the statutory expert exchange procedures. Reopening expert discovery would now require Plaintiff to disclose expert opinions, litigation strategy, and trial preparation that Defendant forfeited by failing to timely comply with the statutory deadlines.” (Opp’n at p. 6:27-7:5.)

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows for a court to “reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.” Section 2024.050(b) set forth the factors for the Court to consider in making this determination, as follows:

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

Until the close of discovery, a party is entitled to conduct discovery “as a matter of right.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(a); see Wagner v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1318.) For good cause, the Court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(a).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001377: O'HARA vs DHILLON, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Discovery Deadline in Department 8D

Defendant explains in their motion that handling defense counsel was recently substituted and the case was reassigned from the handling attorney within the same law firm. (See Hermanson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; see also Notice of Change of Handling Attorney, filed July 9, 2026.) When reviewing the case records, Defendant’s counsel discovered that no demand for the exchange of expert witnesses had occurred. (Hermanson Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5.) Counsel believes the failure was inadvertent and resulted from prior counsel’s handling of the matter. (Hermanson Decl. ¶ 6.) Upon discovering the omission, Defendant promptly sought to reopen discovery specifically with respect to the exchange of expert witness information, reopening of expert discovery, and mutual exchange of expert witness information. (Hermanson Decl. ¶ 7.)

In this case, the Court finds that the discovery at issue is necessary. Based on the representations of Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to introduce expert testimony in support of his case; however, due to Defendant’s failures, Plaintiff contends that any expert discovery should not be permitted. Likewise, it appears that Defendant also seeks to expert testimony and would be precluded from doing so based on the prior handling attorney’s failures. While such issues should have been addressed prior to the initial trial date, it appears to the Court that the matter was promptly addressed after current counsel took over the handling of the matter and after the initial trial continuance was granted.

This litigation was filed in January 2025 and is currently set for trial in September 2026. Plaintiff has not represented or argued that reopening of discovery would require continuance of the trial date or that discovery could not be completed before the current trial date. However, if such additional continuance is needed, under the circumstances before it, the Court would consider vacating or continuing the trial date, at the direction of the presiding judge pursuant to Local Rule 1.05(B).

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s asserted prejudice—of having to address expert discovery and conducting trial with full expert disclosure and discovery—does not establish prejudice sufficient to warrant denial of the instant motion.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b).

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and request for conditioning of reopening of discovery on Defendant’s payment of costs of all Plaintiff’s experts retained or that would need to be replaced are denied.

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to reopen/extend expert discovery is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001377: O'HARA vs DHILLON, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Discovery Deadline in Department 8D

GRANTED.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers with the following deadlines.

Defendant shall serve the demand for exchange of expert witness information by no later than August 12, 2026. Simultaneous exchange of expert witness shall occur on or before August 14, 2026. Supplemental/rebuttal disclosures shall occur on or before August 24, 2026. Expert depositions shall occur by no later than August 31, 2026.

As set forth above, if Plaintiff contends that he is unable to complete expert discovery in this shortened time period, the Court will consider a motion to vacate the current trial date or to further continue the current trial date so that expert discovery can be completed according to the timelines set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.