Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 18STCV07245, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV07245    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff Maria Del Carmen Baklayan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser-CA, Andrew Hu, Evan Omar Nunez, and Jose Nunez for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for January 20, 2023.   

Defendant Andrew Hu (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendant asserts that Defendant has not completed his investigation of Plaintiff’s claims because of purported delays caused by Plaintiff, including by making an unsuccessful motion to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas and canceling confirmed deposition dates.  Defendant avers that he must take approximately 30 depositions to prepare for trial, but Plaintiff’s conduct has obstructed timely doing so.  Defendant contends he has been prevented from obtaining essential testimony and evidence, and that there is not sufficient time for Defendant to obtain such before trial. 

            In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has already obtained multiple trial continuances, and that Defendant did not diligently notice the depositions of all of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.  Plaintiff argues any delay Defendant is complaining of is solely to his own doing, and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued. 

            While the parties dispute who is to blame for any delay in not yet completing discovery, the evidence shows there are discovery disputes at issue between the parties.  For example, as Defendant asserts in reply, the parties continue to dispute the scope of the questioning that Defendant is permitted to ask Plaintiff’s treating physicians during their depositions.  Despite Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas served on Plaintiff’s treating physicians being denied on July 11, 2022, Plaintiff continues to argue that Defendant is seeking to circumvent expert discovery deadlines and impermissibly obtain expert opinion.  Further, there are scheduling issues regarding Defendant’s depositions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.  Defendant, for example, noticed the deposition of Plaintiff’s surgeon for September 22, 2022, but two days prior to the deposition, Plaintiff served Defendant with an objection on the ground that Plaintiff’s counsel was unavailable on the noticed date and time.  (Mot. Rabi Decl. Exh. J.)  There is no showing that the parties have cooperated in rescheduling this and any other delayed depositions. 

In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition shows that there were some delays in this matter associated at least in part with the Covid-19 pandemic.  (See Opp. at p. 6:3-21.)  Moreover, no alternative means are identified to address these issues, and Defendant is seeking the continuance approximately three months before trial, as opposed to waiting to the eve of trial to make the continuance request.  Plaintiff does not identify any prejudice she will suffer from a continuance other than that inherit in the continuance itself.  Therefore, there is good cause for a trial continuance.  However, given the age of the case, the parties should expect no further continuances.  The parties should plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 20, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 6, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 25^th day of October 2022