Motion for Order Reopening Discovery
24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 01/21/2026 Ex Parte - Probate in Department 129
Tentative Ruling
RESPONDENT/OBJECTOR AND CROSS-PETITIONER WANDA MALLOY-LEE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY (CCP § 2024.050; Prob. Code § 1000)
MOTION FILED: 11/07/2025
RE: In re the Estate of: Jimmie Lee Malloy
MOVING PARTY: Respondent Wanda Lee-Malloy Attorney: Simran Sekhon, (209) 425-5225
RESPONDING PARTY: Elaine Malloy, Petitioner In pro per
NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the courts website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
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 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. 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
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?”
24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 01/21/2026 Ex Parte - Probate in Department 129
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 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 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 Respondent Wanda Malloy-Lees (Respondent) motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED as follows.
Respondent alleges that this matter became a contested matter on March 28, 2025. By that time, the trial date was already set for May 19, 2025, leaving an impracticable discovery timeline. Although Respondent was able to notice a deposition, that deposition did not occur. No written discovery was propounded. The trial date has since been rescheduled for March 9, 2026. Thus, Respondent seeks to reopen discovery, with timelines tailored to the new trial date.
Petitioner objects on the grounds that Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence, improperly attempted to circumvent discovery statutes, and has not demonstrated necessity or newly discovered evidence. Petitioner also asserts prejudice will occur because allowing discovery would increase costs, disrupt trial preparation, and undermine the Courts scheduling orders. (Opposition, 3:20-21.)
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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050)
In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration the following: (1) the necessity and reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing on the discovery motion and the reasons the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that reopening discovery will prevent the case from going to trial as scheduled or prejudice any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set and the date presently set for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(b).)
Respondent has sufficiently demonstrated the need for discovery in anticipation of trial and the diligence in pursuing discovery. (Reply, 3:6-16.) Respondent further disputes Petitioners alleged
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 01/21/2026 Ex Parte - Probate in Department 129
prejudice by asserting that the prejudice to Respondent resulting from the lack of discovery before trial outweighs the prejudice to Petitioner in anticipated costs or disruption. The Court agrees.
Given the impracticable timeline for completing discovery before the original trial date, the Court grants leave to reopen discovery after this new 3/9/2026 trial date has been set. The Court finds that Respondent has met the standards of section 2024.050 and shown good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purposes stated. The motion is GRANTED.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)