DYNAPRO, INC., et al. v. CGM, INC. et al.

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. C) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT C LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

INC. et al. CASE NO.: 24NWCV00256 HEARING: 08/26/2026 @ 9:30 AM #13 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendants CGM INTERMODALSHIPPERS INC., PAOLA MATA, and EDDIE GOMEZ AKA EDWARD GOMEZ's motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED, with the limitation set forth below. Moving party to give notice. Defendants CGM INTERMODALSHIPPERS INC., PAOLA MATA, and EDDIE GOMEZ AKA EDWARD GOMEZ (Defendants) move to re-open discovery to obtain discovery from Plaintiffs concerning the quantification of Plaintiffs' alleged damages and the merits of their damages claims.

Background

Filed on January 24, 2024, the operative Complaint involves a business dispute between Plaintiffs, the owners of Dynapro, Inc., a California corporation (Dynapro), Mario Scaturchio (Mario) and Joseph Scaturchio (Joseph) (collectively Plaintiffs), and Defendants Paola Mata (Mata), and her husband, Eddie Gomez (Gomez) (collectively Defendants). who Plaintiffs allege started a competing trucking business with the help of Mata called CGM INTERMODAL SHIPPERS, INC., a California corporation (CGM).

Plaintiffs allege Defendants and each of them were aware of the contracts between Dynapro and its clients but decided to disrupt and decrease those contracts for the benefit of CGM and to deliberately cause the economic loss and ultimate business failure of DynaPro. Plaintiffs allege that in 2023, Defendants alerted and then diverted drivers from Dynapro to CGM. Defendants secretly informed Dynapro employees of the plan to divert business and in fact recruited said employees to conduct business for CGM. Defendants and each of them utilized Dynapro assets for the benefit of CGM. These assets included Dynapro's computers, telephones, insurance, money, and office space.

Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 2. Interference with Contractual Relationships; 3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and 4. Declaratory Relief.

Legal Standard

"On motion of any party, 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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2024.050 subd. (a).)

"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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)

Meet and Confer

A motion to reopen discovery "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2024.050 subd. (a).) Defendants' counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel regarding reopening discovery and Plaintiffs' counsel was not agreeable. (Lopez Decl., P. 8.)

Discussion

Defendants move to reopen discovery to obtain financial information from Plaintiffs to quantify their alleged damages. Defendants request limited discovery to determine: (1) the actual financial condition of DynaPro, Inc. before its alleged dissolution; (2) the revenue, profitability, and customer-specific data relating to Plaintiffs' claimed lost business; (3) the existence and amount of any outstanding debts, guarantees, or liabilities that Plaintiffs claim they are personally responsible for; and (4) any other facts necessary to assess the validity and magnitude of Plaintiffs' damages. Without this discovery, Defendants argue they cannot meaningfully evaluate Plaintiffs' claims, prepare a defense, or engage in informed settlement discussions

On April 24, 2026, Defendants hired new counsel. (Lopez Decl., P. 4, Exh. 1.) Defendants' new counsel learned that prior counsel had never propounded any written discovery on Plaintiffs, no interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, and that no depositions had been taken. (Lopez Decl., P. 5.) Defendants further contend they have diligently responded to Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery requests. Defendants also worked with the Discovery Referee to comply with the Court's March 20, 2026 Order regarding production of CGM's 2024 QuickBooks data and bank statements, including making arrangements for payment and document production. (Lopez Decl., P. 7.)

Moreover, the trial setting conference is calendared on the same date as the hearing for the instant motion. Therefore, no trial date has been set.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that this motion is a result of Defendants' lack of diligence. Plaintiffs emphasize that unlike Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiffs concealed information from them, prevented them from conducting discovery, or refused to comply with any discovery requests propounded by Defendants. Rather, Defendants acknowledge that no such discovery was ever pursued. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants seek to conduct, for the first time, the full range of discovery that was available to them for approximately 19 months. Thus, the reopening of discovery is not limited.

The Court will exercise its discretion to reopen limited discovery because Defendants' lack of diligence is attributable to Defendants' prior counsel. The Court finds the necessity of discovery weighs in favor of Defendants conducting affirmative discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.010.) Moreover, the lack of diligence is mitigated by the fact that trial has not yet been set in this case. Therefore, reopening limited discovery would not be so prejudicial as to disrupt trial preparation. There is minimal risk that conducting basic affirmative discovery would divert resources and create new disputes on the eve of trial.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED with the following limitations: 1. Discovery is reopened for 100 days from the date of the order; 2. Defendants may propound one set of Requests for Production not to exceed twenty-five requests; one set of Special Interrogatories not to exceed twenty-five interrogatories, one set of Form Interrogatories not to exceed twenty interrogatories; one set of requests for admissions not to exceed twenty requests, propounded to each Plaintiff; 3. Defendants may depose Mario Scaturchio, Joseph Scaturchio, and DynaPro's person most qualified, each limited to seven hours under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.290; 4. Expert discovery shall proceed only on the statutory schedule once a trial date is set, with no separate reopening sought.

Case Number: 25NWCV01176 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: C THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER AIDEN GARCIA, et al. vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 25NWCV01176 Plaintiffs