Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: BC584994, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC584994    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Codie Rael’s Renewed Motion to Assign Case to Long Cause Department for Trial

Evidentiary Objections

            Defendants Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., Kerr Corporation, Danaher Corporation, and Ormco Corporation make 16 objections to plaintiff’s evidence in support of this motion.  All objections are overruled.

Long Cause Assignment

Plaintiff Codie Rael renews her motion to assign this action to a long cause department for trial.  The case is currently set for jury trial in this Department on February 22, 2023, with an estimate of seven days.

The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division may assign an action to a long cause trial department if the action will have “20 or more days of testimony.”  (Local Rule 2.8(e).)  The rule provides that the matter is assigned to the “Department where case is assigned, but may be transferred to the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division for assignment to a long cause trial department.” 

This court has issued long cause trial package guidelines.  (Form LACIV218.)  The guidelines require the parties to submit numerous documents, including the operative pleadings, a joint statement of the case, a joint witness list, joint exhibit list, trial briefs, and all parties’ motions in limine.  (Ibid.)

Defendants Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., Kerr Corporation, Danaher Corporation, and Ormco Corporation contend this motion is procedurally defective because plaintiff failed to submit the documents required by the long cause trial package guidelines.  But as plaintiff notes, she cannot do those by herself.  Doing so requires several joint documents and all of defendants’ motions in limine.  Moreover, Local Rule 2.8(e) says the matter is assigned to the “Department where the case is assigned, but may be transferred to the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division for assignment to a long cause trial department.”  The rule thus contemplates that this Department must be the one to transfer the action to the Supervising Judge.

Defendants do not want this case to be assigned to long cause.  A court order is necessary to ensure their cooperation.  This motion is an appropriate vehicle to seek that order.

Defendants contend this case should not be assigned to a long cause trial department because it will not take more than 20 days of testimony.  Plaintiff shows good cause to believe the trial will take at least 20 days of testimony.  This case has been tried once before.  In the first trial, 20 witnesses testified on 22 court days.  (Livshits Decl., ¶ 7.)  Also, “the parties have taken 22 depositions and produced over 2,500 pages of documents.”  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states, “Based on the information available to date, the statistical evidence will require calling several additional witnesses at trial in addition to those called during the first trial.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff’s counsel further states plaintiff intends to call one new expert who did not testify at the first trial, and defendants have stated they are likely to do the same.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

The court finds it is likely the second trial will require more than 20 days of testimony.

Disposition

Plaintiff Codie Rael’s motion is granted.

The court hereby orders all parties to meet and confer in person or by videoconference no later than Tuesday, January 31 regarding submission of the joint trial documents required by the long cause trial package guidelines, form LACIV218.

The court hereby orders the parties to submit the documents required by the court’s long cause trial package guidelines, form LACIV218, no later than February 2, 2023.