Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV35832, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35832    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Defendant to Continue Trial and All Related Dates.

BACKGROUND

ALEXANDER O'BRIEN (“Plaintiff”) brings this employment discrimination case against his former employer KALTEC ELECTRONICS, INC. (“Defendant”).  

On 2/26/24, the Court denied Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the current 5/6/24 trial date. Defendant now brings a motion requesting a six-month continuance of trial and related dates. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Continuances of trial are disfavored and may be granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(c). Circumstances that may show good cause include the substitution of trial counsel if there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, or a party’s excused inability to obtain essential discovery. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(c)(4), (6). In ruling on a motion to continue the trial, the court should consider various factors, including the proximity of the trial date, whether there was any previous continuance, the length of the requested continuance, the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(d)(1)-(3), (5), (10). Judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a request for a continuance. People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 463, 499.

ANALYSIS

            Substitution of Lead Counsel

Defendant argues that good cause exists for a continuance because the attorney handling the case abruptly departed in February 2024. The same firm has represented Defendant since this case was filed in 2022. The attorney who departed in February 2024 had only served as Defendant’s trial counsel in this case since July 2023. The fact that new attorneys at the same firm – with ready access to the work product amassed during this case -- are now working on Defendant’s case does not, taken alone, constitute good cause to continue the trial date.  

Discovery

Defendant also argues good cause exists for a continuance because it has been unable to obtain Plaintiff’s mental health records to adequately prepare for Plaintiff’s deposition and IME. Continuances of trial beyond deadlines of case management rules are required where a party needs time to conduct discovery, and where there is good cause. Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923-24 (“We think it plain that in a case where a litigant is brought into litigation after 14/24ths of the time to litigate it has passed, these factors would dictate at least enough time for that party to reasonably complete discovery and bring a summary judgment motion.”).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s attorneys unjustifiably delayed discovery and Defendant could have completed the discovery timely. Perhaps defense counsel could have sought discovery earlier, but Defendant’s current attorneys have made an adequate showing that they have taken all reasonable steps to obtain the needed medical records, schedule the IME, and pursue additional discovery.  It is clear from the parties’ papers and attached communications that discovery (including expert discovery) is not complete. Given these circumstances, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial to permit the parties to complete discovery.

            Other Factors Militate in Favor of Continuance

The Court agrees with Defendant that the other circumstances laid out in Rule of Court 3.1332(d) militate in favor of a brief continuance. The requested continuance of six months is relatively short and neither side has requested a continuance before. Neither side will suffer prejudice as a result a short continuance, rather, it will ensure that the parties have completed discovery and can try the case on its merits. The recent mediation did not result in a settlement. A short six-month continuance will enable the parties to revisit settlement talks later while also keeping the parties focused on the urgency of doing so, because six months will be here in no time.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. The Court will set a new trial date in November 2024 in consultation with the parties at the hearing. The motion and discovery cutoff dates shall be calculated in relation to the continued trial date.