Winfrey v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 415) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT 415 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEPARTMENT | 415 | HEARING DATE | August 25, 2026 | CASE NUMBER | 21STCV11027, consolidated with 21STCV37117 | MOTION | Motion to Reopen Discovery | MOVING PARTIES | Defendants Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., and Moises Romero | OPPOSING PARTIES | Plaintiffs Grant Winfrey and Hector Munoz | MOTION Defendants Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., and Moises Romero ("Defendants") move to reopen discovery for purposes of taking mental examinations of Plaintiffs Grant Winfrey ("Winfrey") and Hector Munoz (("Munoz"), collectively "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS In determining whether to re-open discovery, the Court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the discovery cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Defendants fail to address these factors in their motion. Instead, they argue Plaintiffs should have stipulated to their mental examinations prior to the discovery cut-off date. However, Plaintiffs were not required to do so. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, a party which seeks to require another party to submit to a mental examination must obtain leave of court.

Defendants had ample opportunity to move for leave to conduct mental examinations prior to the discovery cut-off date, but they did not do so. As Defendants concede, they took Munoz's and Winfrey's depositions on October 12, 2022 and September 15, 2023, respectively. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress no later than those dates, yet failed to diligently seek mental examinations. Filing a motion scheduled for hearing after the discovery cut-off date has passed itself is reflective of Defendants' failure to satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050's requirements.

Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants are to give notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

Case Number: 26STCV02292 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 415 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 415 | CASE NUMBER | 26STCV02292 | MOTIONS | Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice | MOVING PARTIES | Attorneys Joshua L. Mallin, Daniel V. Carlisle, and Dennis T. D'Antonio | OPPOSING PARTY | None