Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 19STCV15834, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 19STCV15834 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Richard Owens’s Motion to Continue Trial
Plaintiff Richard Owens moves to continue the trial
set for April 7, 2023, by 120 days. “The court may grant a continuance only on an
affirmative showing of good cause requiring” it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “A party’s excused inability to obtain
essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent
efforts” indicates good cause. (Rule
3.1332(c)(6).)
Plaintiff moves to continue the trial to obtain
essential evidence in this civil rights action against the police: video
footage of the incident and depositions of the arresting officers. Plaintiff, however, does not show he made
diligent efforts to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. The failure of the parties and their counsel
to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause to continue the trial. (Kuhland v. Sedgwick (1860) 17 Cal.
123, 128 [“The absence of evidence is no cause for a continuance, unless
reasonable diligence has been used to procure it”]; People v. Grant
(1988) 45 Cal.3d 829, 844 [a party’s failure to diligently prepare for trial is
not good cause for a continuance].)
Plaintiff argues defendant City of Los Angeles agreed
to produce body camera videos, but only after entry of a protective order. Plaintiff’s counsel states, “Defendant has
thus had over five months to propose a protective order.” (Tabone Decl., ¶ 6.) Nothing stopped plaintiff from proposing a
protective order. This court has a model
protective order. Plaintiff also argues
defendant repeatedly delayed the depositions.
Plaintiff could have sought to compel the depositions.
Despite plaintiff’s lack of diligence, the court will
exercise its discretion to continue the trial.
Defendant shows no significant prejudice resulting from this continuance. “[T]he interests of justice are best served
by a continuance.” (Rule
3.1332(d)(10).) In this action,
plaintiff alleges police officers used excessive force against him. A fair disposition of this case requires
discovery of video footage of the incident and deposing the arresting officers. This evidence is as essential as can be. Plaintiff must exercise diligence to obtain
that evidence before the continued trial date.
Plaintiff Richard Owens’s motion to continue trial is granted.
The court hereby continues the final status conference
to July 17, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The court
hereby continues the trial from April 7, 2023, to August 2, 2023, at 10:00
a.m.