Motion to Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines
34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
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.
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?”
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 Courts 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
34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines in Department 53
or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants BMS Scolop, Inc., Brian Simmons and Maryann Simmons motion to Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines is denied without prejudice.
By way of the instant motion Defendants seeks to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP § 2024.050 so that discovery deadlines are calculated based on the current December 15, 2025, trial date. Trial had been set for June 9, 2025, but was continued on May 2, 2025, when the Presiding Judge granted Defendants motion to continue trial. In granting the trial continuance, the Presiding Judge, however, noted that any motion to reopen discovery was not properly before Court at that time.
According to Defendants, their prior counsel withdrew on April 29, 2024, and had not conducted any discovery. Defendants retained new counsel and seek to reopen discovery so that new counsel may conduct discovery.
Plaintiff Aisle 3 Concepts opposes the motion on numerous grounds, including that Defendants failed to meet and confer.
The Court finds that Defendants failed to comply with CCP § 2024.050(a). That section requires that a motion to reopen discovery shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040. (CCP § 2024.050(a).) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (CCP § 2016.040 [emphasis added]) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.].
The Discovery Act requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The rule is designed to encourage parties to work out their differences and lessen financial expenditures and burdens upon the parties and the court. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431,1435.) [A] reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement, supra. 177 Cal.App.4th at 1294 [quoting Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439].)
The meet and confer process requires a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) Here, while Defendants counsel declares that he contacted Plaintiffs counsel to request a
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines in Department 53
stipulation to continue trial and all related dates, the declaration does not contain any evidence of any discussions with Plaintiffs counsel regarding the issues raised in connection with the instant motion. The only correspondence between counsel included with Defendants counsels declaration is an April 7, 2025, letter which relates only to whether Plaintiff would stipulate to continue the June 9, 2025 trial date. (Palmer Decl. ¶4; Exh. A) There is no discussion of re-opening discovery in that correspondence. Thus, the motion is denied on the basis of a failure to meet and confer as required. (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439 [court has discretion to deny discovery motion based on failure to meet and confer].)
Given the above, the Court does not address the merits of the request to re-open. Defendants may re-file a motion to re-open, supported by an appropriate meet-andconfer declaration as required by CCP § 2024.050(a), but only if the parties have met and conferred in good faith and have exhausted such effort as described above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.