Tentative Ruling: Emma Jane Lauter v. Matthias Pippig, et al.
Case Number
25CV00548
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 10/02/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion of Plaintiff to Reopen Discovery
Tentative Ruling
For all reasons stated herein, the court grants the motion of plaintiff Emma Jane Lauter to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking the deposition of third-party Jaime Perez in the context of an individual deposition or person most qualified deposition for Quick Response. Plaintiff is granted leave to take this deposition on or before December 4, 2026. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Background:
On January 24, 2025, plaintiff Emma Jane Lauter filed her complaint against defendant Matthias Pippig (Pippig), setting forth four causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) breach of contract; and (4) negligence per se.
As alleged in the complaint:
Plaintiff moved into a residence at 1512 Hillcrest Rd., Santa Barbara (Property) on February 2, 2023. (Compl., p. 4.) The Property was owned and managed by defendant. (Ibid.) There was mold at the Property. (Ibid.) Defendant knew or should have known about the mold. (Ibid.) Plaintiff suffered health consequences from exposure to the mold. (Ibid.)
Five days after moving in, on February 7, 2023, plaintiff advised defendant of her concerns regarding mold and moisture in the hallway and kitchen. (Compl., p. 4.) Defendant failed to properly inspect, test, repair, or remediate the mold and moisture at the Property over a 16-month period. (Ibid.) Plaintiff began to suffer from adverse health symptoms beginning in March 2023, including chronic gastrointestinal problems, skin rashes, respiratory issues, red and painful eyes, chronic fatigue, and cognitive impairment. (Ibid.) Plaintiff continues to suffer from most of these conditions. (Ibid.)
On May 7, 2024, plaintiff’s doctor suggested her health issues may be caused by environmental allergens or toxins. (Compl., p. 4.) Plaintiff immediately conducted thorough inspection and testing of the Property and discovered mold, fungus, and bacteria. (Ibid.) Plaintiff thereafter advised defendant of the presence of mold at the Property. (Ibid.) Plaintiff vacated the Property in July 2024. (Ibid.)
On March 28, 2025, defendant Pippig filed an answer generally denying the allegations in the complaint and setting forth eleven affirmative defenses.
On April 8, 2025, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Jamie Kinser (Kinser) for fictitious defendant Doe 1.
On June 26, 2025, defendant Kinser filed an answer generally denying the allegations in the complaint and setting forth eleven affirmative defenses.
This matter was originally set for trial on May 8, 2026. At the May 8 hearing, the court continued trial to June 5, 2026. At the June 5 hearing, the court set firm trial dates beginning on August 2, 2027.
On May 21, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to reopen discovery pertaining to a deposition of third-party Quick Response, a vendor that provided mold remediation services at the Property. An amended motion was filed on May 27. The motion argues that Quick Response produced a person most qualified (PMQ), Darryl Butler, at a deposition noticed by plaintiff. Based on Butler’s testimony the actual PMQ was a person named Jaime Perez. Defendants intend to call Perez at trial and plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of Perez before trial. Plaintiff was unable to take the deposition of Perez during the original discovery period because the Quick Response PMQ deposition occurred at the very end of the original discovery period, among other circumstances.
On June 8, 2026, the court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to set this motion on shortened notice.
There is no opposition or response from defendants to this motion.
Analysis:
“On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)
“In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: [¶] (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. [¶] (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. [¶] (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. [¶] (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)
Here, plaintiff submits evidence that Perez is an important witness pertaining to mold remediation at the Property, which is a key issue in the case. (Declaration of John B. Richards [Richards Decl.], ¶¶ 1-3.) Plaintiff establishes that defendants intend to call Perez as a witness at trial. (Richards Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff demonstrates that she took the PMQ deposition of Quick Response during the original discovery period but Perez, who had the most knowledge on some of the key issues, was not produced as a witness. (Richards Decl., ¶¶ 1-3 & Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not have sufficient time to otherwise take the deposition of Perez during the discovery period.
The court finds that plaintiff was sufficiently diligent given that plaintiff expected to obtain testimony from the Quick Response PMQ during the discovery period, but the witness produced at the deposition did not have sufficient knowledge on key issues. Plaintiff thereafter took reasonable steps to take the deposition of Perez. The deposition of Perez would not interfere with the trial calendar. Defendants will also have an opportunity to ask Perez deposition questions. Defendants have not provided evidence of any unfair prejudice or other reason why the court should deny plaintiff’s motion for leave. Given all the circumstances, the court will grant plaintiff leave to take the deposition of Perez.