Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl v. Superior Court
Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl, a California professional corporation (the Stockwell firm), and three of its members, George Woolverton, Steven Harris and Edward Muehl (collectively Defendants), challenge an order denying their motion to reopen discovery. They contend our decision in a series of consolidated writ proceedings involving discovery matters and a motion in limine will result in a new trial so as to automatically reopen discovery with a new discovery cutoff date under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.[1] They also contend, in the alterative, the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen discovery on limited issues.
We conclude that our decision on pretrial matters involving discovery disputes and a motion in limine did not automatically reopen discovery, but the denial a discretionary reopening in these circumstances was an abuse of discretion. We therefore will grant the petition.
Comments on Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl v. Superior Court