Motion to Reopen Discovery
(37) Tentative Ruling
Re: Aguilar Galeana v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG04997
Hearing Date: May 13, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: by Defendant to Reopen Discovery
Tentative Ruling:
To deny without prejudice.
Explanation:
Any other party may take the deposition of any person designated as an expert by the opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.410.) Expert depositions may be taken as late as 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §2024.030.) Parties may waive this discovery cut-off by stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.030.) Service of a proper deposition notice and tender of the expert witness fee “is effective to require the party employing or retaining the expert to produce the expert for the deposition.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2034.460, subd. (a).) Where a party unreasonably fails to make an expert available for deposition, the court shall exclude the expert’s opinion from evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300.) Where an expert has not been made available for deposition and a party wishes to object to that witness’s testimony at trial, a formal objection should be made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300.) This can appropriately be addressed in a motion in limine. (Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936, 950
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?”
Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 412- 415.)
Here, defendant served a demand for expert exchange on March 17, 2026. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶ 2.) On April 1, 2026, plaintiff served his expert witness designation identifying six expert witnesses. (Id. at ¶ 3 and Exh. 1.) On April 2, 2026, defendant noticed the depositions for each of the designated experts. (Id. at ¶ 4 and Exhs. 2-7.) On April 8, 2026, plaintiff served objections on behalf of each expert based on unavailability. (Id. at ¶ 5 and Exhs. 8-13.) Following this, defense counsel made attempts to have plaintiff provide alternative dates for the expert depositions. (Id. at ¶ 6 and Exh. 14.) As of the filing of the instant motion on April 21, 2026, no response had been received. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. That section provides for a motion 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, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Ibid.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires
the meet and confer efforts to be in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).) Here, the email correspondence is insufficient. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: DTT on 5/11/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
5