Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc.

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

34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other To Reopen All Pending Pre-trial and Discovery Deadlines in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants BMS Scolcop, Inc., Brian Simmons, and Maryann Simmons’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Reset All Pre-Trial and Discovery Deadlines is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

By way of the instant motion Defendants seek to reopen discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 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 (“Plaintiff”) opposes.

Legal Standard

Although discovery must generally be competed no later than 30 days before trial, Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(a) permits the Court to extend or reopen discovery under certain conditions. Until those dates, 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).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b), provides four factors the court shall take into consider, including any matter relevant: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery, including reasons discovery or discovery motion was not completed earlier; (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other To Reopen All Pending Pre-trial and Discovery Deadlines in Department 53

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. (Regan v. Lanet (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 353, 361.)

Discussion

Defendants explain in their motion:

(1) Defendants’ new counsel substituted into the case on April 28, 2025 and has not had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Prior counsel did not conduct any discovery. Defendants’ request the opportunity to conduct limited discovery which is narrowly tailored and necessary to prepare the action for trial; (2) Defendants initially sought to reset/reopen pre-trial deadlines as part of their motion to continue trial, but no stipulation was reached, and the Court did not grant relief to reopen discovery as the matter was not property before the Court; (3) Defendants then filed a noticed motion to reset pre-trial deadlines on May 28, 2025, but was denied for failure to properly meet and confer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2016.040; (4) With more than six months before the continued trial date, the new pre-trial and discovery deadlines will not cause undue delay or disrupt the trial schedule; and (5) As noted above, trial was initially set for June 9, 2025, and has been continued to December 15, 2025.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have still not met their meet and confer obligations, and that Defendants have failed to act diligently in seeking to reopen discovery. Plaintiff further argues that the new discovery cut off proposed by Defendants would leave only 3.5 months to resolve any discovery disputes, which would likely lead to further continuance of the trial date.

The Court concludes that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b). Defendants were diligent in seeking to reopen discovery following continuance of the trial date, including their efforts to meet and confer prior to bringing the instant motion. Notably, Plaintiffs make no showing that the discovery will cause prejudice to them or interfere with the trial calendar/trial date beyond general conclusory speculations that Defendants will not be able to conduct discovery in the limited time available to them.

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