Lucaci vs. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian

Plaintiff Moves to Continue Motion and Discovery Cutoff Dates with New Trial Date. This case was filed on 2/7/23. On 5/2/24, trial was set for 8/25/25 and on 4/9/25 trial was continued to 12/8/25. On 11/3/25, Judge Nelson recused himself and on 11/6/25, Judge Larsh continued trial to 9/28/26 and continued Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to 7/16/26. The minute order stated in part, “Open discovery as to pending motions only.”

Plaintiff filed the present motion, or in the alternative ex parte application, on 11/17/25. On 11/18/25, Judge Larsh heard argument on the application and issued a minute order stating in part, “The Ex-Parte Application is denied in part. The Court grants in part allowing the discovery and motion cut off dates in accordance with the new trial date of Sept. 28, 2026 as to all expert witnesses.”

Plaintiff alleges a discovery and motion continuance is necessary to (1) take the deposition of Plaintiff’s former supervisor and treating physician Dr. Diamant, (2) allow Plaintiff to file a motion for sanctions related to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (3) allow Defendants’ experts to be deposed after the expert discovery cutoff due to their unavailability, and (4) allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery related to Defendants’ supplemental discovery responses which identify new information in support of affirmative defenses.

In opposition, Defendants contend the motion is moot in light of Judge Larsh’s 11/18/25 order granting the application in part, and that Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of the motion constitutes an improper motion for reconsideration. Defendants contend this is Plaintiff’s fifth request for such relief and that the subject expert discovery which was continued by Judge Larsh has been completed in February 2026 and the subject discovery motions have been resolved by Judge De La Cruz via information discovery conference and stipulation of the parties, with a follow-up IDC scheduled for 5/5/26. 21

In reply, Plaintiff contends that although the subject depositions have been completed, Plaintiff has not yet analyzed the transcripts to determine if follow-up discovery is necessary.

The relief requested in the motion has already been addressed by Judge Larsh and Judge De La Cruz, rendering the motion moot. To the extent Plaintiff contends follow-up discovery may be needed now that depositions have been completed, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a specific need for follow-up discovery or shown diligence in seeking such discovery.