Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV02365, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02365    Hearing Date: July 12, 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

Defendant Babak Nassimizadeh (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. Plaintiff Ozz Saturne (“Plaintiff”) opposes and Defendant replies.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a motor vehicle accident. The complaint was filed on February 2, 2023. Trial was initially set for August 1, 2024.  

Defendant filed his answer on May 3, 2023.  

There have been no prior continuances in this case. Therefore, based on the August 1, 2024 trial date, fact discovery in this case closed on July 2, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.)

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.”  

8.      

(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

Defendant requests a 90-day continuance of trial and all discovery and motion dates, to obtain records from Plaintiff’s most recent treating doctor. Defendant argues this doctor (Dr. Chiacchiero) was revealed for the first-time during Plaintiff’s April 8, 2024 deposition. (Reider Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant then worked to obtain the medical records from Dr. Chiacchiero informally. The records were informally produced on May 24, 2024 by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 9.) However, to obtain the complete records from Dr. Chiacchiero, whose office is in New York, Defendant needed Plaintiff’s authorization. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided the authorization to Defendant. (Id. ¶ 10.) Thus, Defendant is delayed in reviewing the complete records.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to address section 2024.050 in moving to reopen discovery. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant failed to diligently complete discovery and that the parties are currently conducting expert discovery, which will end on July 16, 2024. Plaintiff essentially argues the continuance is unnecessary since the records have been informally produced twice (on May 24, 2024 and June 14, 2024), and Dr. Chiachhiero is a designated expert who Defendant can depose and confirm that the records provided are complete. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s counsel admits he did not provide the signed authorization form to Defendant because he believed the records provided were sufficient and did not learn that Defendant was dissatisfied until reviewing this motion. (Burunsuzyan Decl. ¶ 14.)  Plaintiff’s counsel also argues he will be prejudiced if trial is continued due to an impacted trial schedule.

In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff revealed for the first time in expert discovery, treatment from MedTrak Diagnostics in November 2023.[1] Defendant argues that had he known of the MedTrak Diagnostics, he would have acted more quickly to retain a neurologist and conduct an independent medical examination. (Reply, 3.)

However, Defendant made this motion to receive the complete medical records from Dr. Chiachhiero’s office. Therefore, he provides insufficient evidence to warrant continuing trial to conduct an IME; he also does not explain why he did not conduct an IME based on Plaintiff’s other medical records. Moreover, Defendant does not address the factors in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. Since the only basis to continue trial is a discovery issue, and Defendant has not properly moved to reopen discovery, there is no good cause to continue the trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

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