Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV33535, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33535    Hearing Date: November 5, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident. Defendants Manoug Tokatlian and Lena Tokatlian (“Defendants”) now move to reopen discovery and continue trial. Plaintiff Denise Ramorino (“Plaintiff”) opposes, and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on September 13, 2021. Trial was initially set for March 13, 2023.  

            On February 27, 2023, at the final status conference, after the case was not served, the trial date was vacated.

            On October 16, 2023, Defendants filed their answer.

            On November 2, 2023, at the trial setting conference, trial was set for November 4, 2024. All discovery/motion cut-offs attached to that trial date.

            On October 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application and continued trial to January 31, 2025. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-offs remained attached to the November 4, 2024 trial date. (Min. Order, 10/2/24.)

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1)   The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)   The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)   The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)   The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5)   The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6)   A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7)   A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1)   The proximity of the trial date;

(2)   Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3)   The length of the continuance requested;

(4)   The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5)   The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)   If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)   The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)   Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)   Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿ 

Discussion

Defendants ask to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing four witnesses to Plaintiff’s damages claim who were first disclosed during Plaintiff’s September 17, 2024 deposition. Defendants also request a 28-day trial continuance to February 28, 2025.

Defendants argue that on September 17, 2024, Plaintiff testified that four persons have knowledge of her alleged injuries and the impact on her daily life: her husband, Cristian Ramorino; her two adult sons that lived with her at the time of and after the accident, Clark and Frank; and her close friend, Monica. (Basil Decl. ¶ 21.) Defendants contend these four individuals were not disclosed in previous discovery responses. (See id. ¶¶ 15–16, Exh. 3 at 3:12–14, Exh. 6 at 4:10–15.)

Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiff on September 24, 2024. On September 30, 2024, Defendants obtained the deposition transcript for the witnesses’ names but were unable to conduct depositions before the October 4, 2024 discovery cut-off.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she disclosed her husband Cristian Ramorino (“Cristian”) as a witness to the accident (Form Interrogatory 12.1) and sons Klark Kleczek and Francisco Lascano in Form Interrogatory 20.11 (regarding possession of each vehicle involved). (Opp., 2.) In response to Defendants’ special interrogatory 9, asking for contact information from persons supporting Plaintiff’s claim for damages, Plaintiff responded: ““[t]he medical providers whose information has already been given in responses to Defendant Lena Tokatlian's form interrogatories and Request for of Documents.” (Basil Decl., Exh. 6.) In a similar interrogatory from co-defendant Lyft, Plaintiff responded: “Discovery has not been completed, currently they are all the PERSONS including witnesses and medical providers identified in defendants' form interrogatories.” (Id., Exh. 7, SROG 14.)

Plaintiff’s counsel, who is Plaintiff’s husband Cristian Ramorino, asserts that Defendants’ counsel agreed on September 26, 2024 that Cristian Ramorino would not testify as a witness in this case. (Ramorino Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also argues Defendants did not act diligently by arranging Plaintiff’s deposition near the discovery cut-off. She also argues that Cristian cannot be compelled to testify against Plaintiff under the spousal privilege and contends there are limits for deposing counsel. In reply, Defendants do not address the spousal privilege issue or the limits for deposing counsel. No motion to compel nor motion for protective order have been filed, and therefore these arguments are premature. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to any further motion.

Nevertheless, the discovery produced by Plaintiff shows that these four witnesses were not clearly identified in the discovery responses pertaining to the damages claim. Defendants have therefore acted diligently. Seeing as trial has already been continued to January 31, 2025, and there are only four witnesses at issue, it appears there is time for the depositions to be completed by the trial date. As a result, the motion to reopen discovery is granted. Given that trial has already been continued, the Court finds there is insufficient good cause for an additional 28-day trial continuance.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery pertaining to the depositions of the four witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s September 17, 2024 deposition and shall be limited to the issue of Plaintiff’s damages claim.

Defendants shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.