Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-extend-discovery-cut-off-date-427
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 00:54:32
Document Index: 621063721

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2016', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 1005', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§ 2024', '§36', '§ 2034', '§ 2024']

What is a Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date?
Absent an extension, discovery proceedings must be completed within thirty (30) days before the initial trial date (the "discovery period"). Discovery motions must be completed fifteen (15) days before the initial trial date. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a).)
Absent an extension, a postponement or continuance of the trial date does not extend the discovery period. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(b).)
The discovery period can be extended or discovery can be reopened either by agreement of the parties, or in certain circumstances upon a party's motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.050; 2024.060.)
In no case does an extension of the discovery date operate to obligate a court to postpone or continue the trial date. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.060.)
Extension by Agreement by the Parties
The Parties to an action can agree to extend the time for discovery or discovery motions, or to re-open discovery if the trial date is postponed, provided:
All parties affected agree to the extension;
The agreement is formalized:
"In a writing; with
Specifying the new date on which the discovery period ends.
(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.060
Motion To Extend Discovery Cut-off Date
After the 30-day discovery period, any party can motion to complete discovery.(Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).)
Alternatively, any party can motion the court to order that the discovery period be extended so that the discovery period cutoff date is closer to the initial or postponed trial date. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).)
The motion must be accompanied by a "meet and confer declaration." (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).) A meet and confer declaration must allege "facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informally resolving all of the motion's issues." (Code Civ. Pro. § 2016.040(a).) More specifically, the declaration “requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431.)
The court can hear a discovery motion after the discovery period cutoff date, but only with a motion to compel that discovery be extended under Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050. (Peltun-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App,4th 1568.) The court cannot convert a motion for leave to amend a reply into a motion to extend discovery. (Id.)
Factors Considered In Deciding Motion For Extension
The court may decide to grant the motion in its discretion. " (Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(a).) Among the factors it may consider are:
Necessity and the reasons for the discovery;
The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking to extend the discovery;
Reasons discovery was not completed within the discovery period;
The likelihood that permitting an extension will:
Prevent the case from going to trial on the set trial date;
Interfere with the trial calendar; or
Prejudice any other party; or
The amount of time that has elapsed in any postponement to the original trial date.
(Code Civ. Pro. § 2024.050(b); see also People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th.)
It is an abuse of discretion for the court to grant a motion to compel without the parties addressing, and the court considering the relevant factors identified in CCP §2024.050. (See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)
Risk Of Sanction For Losing A Motion To Extend Discovery
The Court must impose a monetary sanction on a party who unsuccessfully makes or oppose a motion to extend or reopen discovery, unless:
The motioning party had substantial justification; or
Other circumstances make the sanctioning unjust.
Useful Rulings on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date
HASLEY, ANTANESHA VS AHUMADA, VICTOR
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY (CCP § 2024.050) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Marianne Strauther’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is hereby re-opened and all discovery cut-off dates follow the current trial date of September 18, 2019. The Court set a hearing date for Defendant Marianne Strauther’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories, Request for Productio...
..her (erroneously named and sued as “Marianne Straughter”) (“Strauther”). At the initial trial scheduled on September 17, 2018, the parties orally stipulated to a trial continuance but did not request the Court to continue the discovery cut-off dates based on the new trial date of September 18, 2019. (See 9/17/18 Minute Order.) Strauther subsequently filed motions to compel discovery responses, but...
THE HERTZ CORPORATION VS RACHAL SMITH
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY (CCP § 2024.050) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is CONTINUED TO FEB. 4, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94 for lack of meet and confer. I. Background This case was previously assigned to the Norwalk Courthouse as a collection case. On October 17, 2018, Commissioner Sheryl M. Beasley in the Norwalk Courthouse transferr...
..because discovery had closed, it brought the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery (the “Motion”) on July 17, 2019. II. Discussion “Section 2024.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to permit a party to reopen discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)” (People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1, 26.) However, such motion to reopen discovery “shall be accompanied by...
Weeks v. Park Lane, et al. Plaintiff Ramona Weeks’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. II. Proof of Service The Court notes that there is no proof of service to show that the Motion was served on Defendants as required by CCP § 1005. Despite this, it appears Defendants were served with the Motion because Defendants filed their opposition and do not argue the service issue i...
..uding ‘the necessity and the reasons for the discovery’ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)), the ‘diligence or lack of diligence’ on the party requesting the discovery and the reasons the matter discovery was not requested earlier (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(2)), the likelihood granting the request would result in a delay of the trial (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd...
BEATRIZ A. MADRIGAL VS FOREST CITY ANTELOPE VALLEY, INC.
The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision: First. The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2024.050(b)(1). The Court finds that neither party has addressed the necessity of Mr. Farkas’ anticipated testimony, and the Court considers that since the testimony appears to be predicated on Mr. Farkas’ experiences as a perci...
..laintiff did not act with diligence in seeking the disputed discovery as it was within the contemplation of the parties no later than Mr. Farkas’ previous deposition date in October 2016, and Plaintiff had approximately 6 months to pursue the instant discovery, but instead waited approximately 14 months to perform a simple walkthrough and water test of the ground – there appears to be no justifi...
ARNOLD BOCANEGRA VS. SERVICE BY AIR, INC.
# 13. Bocanegra vs. Service by Air, Inc. Case No.: TC028262 Matter on calendar for: Motion to Reopen Discovery and Compel Production of Documents Tentative ruling: On 9/24/15, Plaintiff Arnold Bocanegra initiated this action against Defendant Service By Air, Inc., seeking to collect for services rendered for pickup and delivery of items that Defendant requested. Defendant answered the Compla...
..eopening discovery in this action, compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests (which were due for response on 5/15/16), and sanctioning Bocanegra and/or his attorney in connection with this motion. A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020.) However, CCP § 2024.050 provides that, on motio...
Recent Rulings on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date
ASHLEY MADDOCK VS EMPLOYMENT TAX SERVICING CORPORATION ET AL
The Court did not extend discovery and motion cutoff dates, meaning that the discovery motion cutoff date remained on March 27, 2020. On February 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and extended the deadline for all expert discovery and motions related to expert discovery to be based on the July 13, 2020 trial date.
Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White
Also noticed for hearing was plaintiffs’ motion to continue the trial previously set for June 29, 2020, to continue the pretrial conference and mandatory settlement conference, and to extend discovery and motion deadlines accordingly. This motion is MOOT in light of the Notice of Trial Setting Conference filed on May 28, 2020, which vacated the trial, pretrial conference, and mandatory settlement conference pursuant to the May 6, 2020 General Order re COVID-l9 Emergency Order Regarding Complex Cases.
MICHAEL BUCHNO FACTOR VS GARY FACTOR ET AL
Chavez bc575549 Hearing on the Motion to Extend Discovery Cut off Date is continued to 5/6/2020 at 1:30 pm. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing. The Court is ordered to give notice.
DAISY CALLEJA VS JOSE CHAVEZ
Chavez - BC574549 Hearing on the Motion to Extend Discovery Cut off Date is continued to 5/6/2020 at 1:30 pm. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing. The Court is ordered to give notice.
RANDALL GUTTRIDGE VS. STONEHOUSE DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION
Given this scheduling conflict, the lack of a voluntary agreement to extend discovery, and the likelihood that the physicians will have limited availability for a deposition, the Court finds good cause for a short continuance.
Judge Russell L. Hom
NICOLE BOLGER VS. AMANDA JONES
The Court intends to rule as follows; Moving Defendants' motion to continue trial and reopen/extend discovery cutoff dates is GRANTED. Moving Defendants have shown good cause for such an order pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 and CCP section 2024.050. The trial will be continued to 5/25/20, or later date that is convenient for the Court and the parties. The discovery cutoff dates will be tethered to the new trial date. Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.
MISHEAL MCCOY ET AL VS MAUREEN OJOSE ET AL
SAHAGUN #14 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Emuakpoyeri Ojose’s motion to extend discovery cut off is DENIED. Plaintiff to give NOTICE. As an initial matter, although the motion was filed by both Defendants Emuakpoyeri Bobbie Ojose and Maureen Ojose, the motion is only signed by Emuakpoyeri. Because Emuakpoyeri is not a licensed attorney, he cannot represent another individual in court. Therefore, the court will construe the motion as one being brought by Emuakpoyeri only.
QUALITY FIRST HOME IMPROVEMENT INC VS. ROBERTA A ALVARADO
Request to Extend Discovery Deadline Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(a), discovery closes 30 days before the initial date set for trial, which in this case was on September 25, 2019. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b), a trial continuance does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings, and absent a stipulation, such a request must be made on noticed motion. Alvarado's motion includes a request to reopen discovery until thirty days before the new date set for trial.
CORRINET VS. BARDY
Plaintiff says it was a quid pro quo for an agreement not to extend discovery past the January 2018 trial date. But again, there is no term of the stipulation to that effect. Further, while the “bid and ask” of the 2017 stipulation are not explained in detail, it was evidently plaintiff, not just defendants, who was seeking to extend the discovery cutoff date to a time after the original June 2017 trial date (though it may be inferred that defendants were fine with that extension too).
CHRISTOPHER DOLAN AND MACERICH INCORP ORATED
. § 2024.020) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to hear a discovery motion after the discovery cutoff date when Defendant has not moved to extend discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(a) either prior to or simultaneously with the instant motion. (See Peltun-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v.
JENNY SOLIS ET AL VS CESAR JULIO BLANCO ET AL
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE AND COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jenny Solis, et al. RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Cesar Julio Blanco and Christian Arturo Limon. PROOF OF SERVICE: ANALYSIS By way of the August 27, 2019 order, the Court permitted this motion to be heard beyond the discovery and hearing cut-off date. Accordingly, the only issue to be resolved is the motion to compel deposition.
BIJAN ISRAEL VS AVNER KADOSH
On July 26, 2019, Bijan filed: (1) a Partial Request for Dismissal, dismissing without prejudice only the abuse of process cause of action; and (2) this motion to reopen discover or extend discovery. No opposition has been filed. Summary of Issues Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, Bijan moves for an order to reopen discovery or, alternatively, to extend time to complete discovery and related motions. A proposed order is attached to the motion. ANALYSIS A.
STROBEL, ET AL. V. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., ET AL.
Motion for Preference in Trial Setting and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off filed by Plaintiffs TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs’ motion for preference in trial setting is granted. Plaintiffs have established that the medical condition of plaintiff DOUGLAS STROBEL raises substantial medical doubt that he will survive beyond six months, and thus, the interests of justice will be served by granting preference. Therefore, the court grants preference under CCP §36(d). Counsel are to appear to set a trial date.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS YONG JIN LEE ET
BC679406 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS YONG JIN LEE ET AL Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Extend Discovery Cut-Off, Motion and Expert Disclosure Dates TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Trial is continued to February 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The FSC is continued to January 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.
POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER VS KAISER FOUNDATION
Accordingly, decisions about whether to grant a continuance or extend discovery must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. What is required is balance.
JUSTIN KIM ET AL VS KWE SIK CHANG ET AL
Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer by obtaining a stipulation to extend discovery cutoff, but Defendant refused. Reply Declaration of Ayk Arutyunyan, ¶ 10. While Defendant makes much of the fact that Plaintiff delayed in initiating discovery, Defendant concedes that he changed his liability position two months before trial and will now be disputing liability. Motion, Ex 1. As such, the deposition of a witness passenger in Defendant’s vehicle is necessary.
ABIGAIL BOLDE VS NAVISTAR INC ET AL
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiff’s Expert Witness List and Extend Discovery Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery, filed on 4/24/19, is GRANTED. In granting the requested relief, the court takes into account certain factors: the extent to which the opposing parties relied on the list of expert witnesses and after determining that the opposing parties will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620.
MOTION CONTINUED FROM 05/28/2019 - NO CHANGE ON TENTATIVE Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiff’s Expert Witness List and Extend Discovery Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery, filed on 4/24/19, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Extend Discovery Cut-off Date, filed on 4/9/19, is GRANTED. The Court has discretion to reopen discovery. Among the factors to be considered are the diligence or lack of diligence in seeking discovery, the likelihood that permitting discovery will prevent the case from going to trial, and resulting prejudice to the opposing party, among other things. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2024.050.
TRAN VS. MURRAY [EFILE]
Murray's request to extend discovery for the time lost as a result of this Motion is denied.
CESAR SOSA VS. PRECISE FIT LIMITED
.: VC063719 HEARING: 05/03/19 TENTATIVE ORDER Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant RICHARD HERNANDEZ’s Ex Parte Application for an Order to Extend Discovery Cutoff and Order to Compel Depositions of CESAR SOSA JR.; CESAR SOSA SR.; and HECTOR SOSA is CONTINUED to Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. Moving Party to give Notice.
MA GUADALUPE ARECHIGA VS JDH CAPITAL, LLC
LAURA DEWEY V. TAREK SULEIMANAGICH
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Continue to Extend Discovery Deadline and Continue Trial Date Based Upon Good Cause Tentative Ruling: Motion denied, based upon untimeliness of the motion; failure to meet and confer, and inadequate explanation for the defendant's delay in taking necessary action concerning discovery. The half-day court trial will remain as set on June 3, 2019.