S. vs. DOE 1

6. Deposition excerpts from Rich Carroll and other witnesses concerning the photographs. the drain condition, and the chronology of events 7. Additional emails, photographs. correspondence, and documentary evidence omitted from the prior exhibit list by former counsel.

8. Plaintiff's May 8, 2021, written communications to Rich Carroll, sent immediately following Plaintiff's hospitalization, notifying Rich Carroll that Defendants debris remained over Plaintiff's drain, informing him and demanding immediate removal of the debris. These communications are highly probative of Defendants' notice, knowledge, opportunity to preserve evidence, and failure to promptly remedy the hazardous condition.

(See Reply, pgs. 1-3; see also Decl. of Kimes ISO Reply, ¶¶ 6-15).

There are various issues with the Reply and declaration in support of the Reply.

First, Plaintiff failed to mention any of these exhibits and witnesses in his motion (other than his vague reference to “medical evidence” that was obtained after the cut-off). Defendants were not provided with an opportunity to address any of this in their Opposition. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 [“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”]).

Second, Plaintiff still does not explain why discovery needs to be reopened (assuming this is the relief he is requesting) because of a December 2025 ER visit.

Finally, all the other witnesses and exhibits identified in the Reply brief and in Plaintiff’s declaration do not relate to the medical evidence that Plaintiff referred to in his motion.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Defendant shall give notice of both rulings.

9 S. vs. DOE 1 CONTINUED TO 7/16/26 IN DEPT. CM02