Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV23608, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23608    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant
General Motors, LLC’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

Defendant does
not show good cause to continue trial.  “To ensure the prompt disposition
of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.”  (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1332(a).)  “The court may grant a continuance only on an
affirmative showing of good cause requiring” it.  (Rule 3.1332(c).)

               
Defendant seeks to continue the trial based on evidence newly discovered at
plaintiff’s deposition on November 30, 2022.  Good cause to continue trial
includes “[a]  party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony,
documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.”  (Rule
3.1332(c)(6).)  The failure of the parties and their counsel to diligently
prepare for trial, however, 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 [failure to diligently prepare for trial
is not good cause for a continuance].) 

               
Defendant fails to show sufficient diligence in conducting discovery.  GM
filed its answer on July 30, 2021.  GM could have deposed plaintiff far
earlier.  GM does not explain its efforts to conduct discovery earlier in
this case.  And once GM discovered new evidence at plaintiff’s deposition
on November 30, it should have promptly sought further discovery, including
deposing the newly identified witnesses.  If necessary, GM could have
moved to compel those depositions or to continue the trial.  GM delayed
doing so until shortly before trial.

               
The application is denied.