Defendants? Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas and Notice of Deposition re Robert Crandall is granted.
The Motion arises out of a dispute as to the effect of a Stipulation and resulting Order entered 2/25/16, which continued the trial date in this action.? Per that Stipulation, the Court continued the trial date and FSC date, and provided that the deadlines for dispositive motions would be determined by the original 6/6/16 trial date, but was silent as to whether any other deadlines would also be continued. Defendants argue that the discovery cut-off dates thus did not change as a result of the continuance, while Plaintiffs argue that they did, as this was necessarily implied by the provision as to dispositive motions.
Under C.C.P. ? 2024.060, an agreement to continue cut-off dates must be in writing and must specify the extended date.? An implied extension is insufficient.? Therefore, the original cut-off dates remained although the trial and FSC dates moved.? The deposition subpoena and notice at issue, both served after the original trial date had passed, are thus untimely. The Motion to Quash is therefore granted.
However, Defendants? request for sanctions is denied.? Plaintiffs? mistaken belief that the cut-off dates had been extended was excusable, in light of the language used in the Stipulation. And as Plaintiffs note, Defendants also attempted to notice a deposition after the cut-off, although defense counsel evidently had no comparable misunderstanding of the applicable deadlines.? Sanctions as to Plaintiffs and/or their counsel are not warranted under these circumstances.
Plaintiffs? request to reopen discovery is denied.? Under C.C.P. ? 2024.050(a), a request to reopen discovery is to be sought ?on motion,? and accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.? It is thus insufficient to seek such relief by stating the request in an opposition.? Nor does the evidence presented warrant such relief.? Reopening discovery at this time would be likely to delay trial. In addition, Plaintiffs were aware of the nature of Mr. Crandall?s opinions by late April, yet did not then seek his deposition in the weeks remaining before the cut-off.? And as Defendants claim that they did not take Plaintiffs? expert?s deposition, there is no apparent inequity which will result from Plaintiffs? mistake.
Defendants? request for sanctions under C.C.P. ? 2024.050(c), presented for the first time on reply, is also denied. Imposition of sanctions for requesting such relief under these circumstances would be unjust.
Moving parties are to give notice.