Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV34806, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34806    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Continue Trial

            Defendant City of Los Angeles moves to continue the trial set for March 6, 2024, by six months.  Defendant also moves to continue the discovery cutoff and other pretrial deadlines.

Defendant does not show good cause to continue the 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).)  “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).)

Defendant moves for a continuance to permit more time to finish plaintiff’s deposition and to depose other witnesses.  Defendant does not show it 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 defendant’s failure to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause for a continuance].)

Defendant answered plaintiff Randy Rangel’s complaint on December 2, 2022.  But defendant did not initiate written discovery until October 2023.  (Nair Decl., ¶ 2; Nguyen Decl., Ex. D [plaintiff’s responses dated November 6, 2023].)  Defendant served its initial notice of plaintiff’s deposition on October 16, 2023.  (Nguyen Decl., Ex. A.)  Defendant offers no explanation for not beginning discovery earlier. 

Moreover, defendant seeks to continue the discovery cutoff after it passed.  “[A]ny party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  (CCP § 2024.020(a).)  The trial is set for March 6, 2024.  The deadline to complete fact discovery was February 5, and the deadline to hear discovery motions was February 20. 

Because those deadlines have passed, the court cannot reopen discovery “without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened … under all of the relevant circumstances.”  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588; see CCP § 2024.020(b) [“Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings”].)  Defendant did not move to reopen discovery.  It has not demonstrated good cause to do so under the circumstances. 

Disposition

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to continue trial is denied.