Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV26255, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26255    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Gilberta Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for damages Plaintiff sustained while on Defendant’s bus.  Trial is currently set for March 16, 2023. 

Plaintiff now moves to continue the current trial date to June 12, 2023, or to a date thereafter.  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff asserts that she has been unable to obtain essential discovery.  In particular, Plaintiff provides that after she noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable, Defendant produced Demetrius Jones (“Jones”), but Jones had no knowledge of numerous topics in the deposition notice.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to produce any documents demanded in the deposition notice.  Following meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has refused to produce a new person most knowledgeable or produce any documents.  Plaintiff then set an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) for January 6, 2023, and a motion to compel concerning the subject discovery for March 27, 2023.  However, Plaintiff asserts that a calendar error resulted in the January 6, 2023 IDC not going forward, so Plaintiff reserved the next available IDC for April 13, 2023.  Plaintiff argues that she seeks only a brief trial continuance, and that she will be prejudiced if forced to go to trial without sufficient time to complete discovery. 

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has had substantial opportunities to complete discovery, and Defendant asserts that it has cooperated with Plaintiff in conducting discovery.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not been prevented from obtaining essential testimony or documents, and that Plaintiff has not been diligent in obtaining additional discovery.  Defendant contends that there is no good cause for a continuance. 

            In reply, Plaintiff argues the continuance is necessary to allow her motion to compel to be heard, and Plaintiff again contends that Defendant has not produced relevant discovery.   

The relevant factors weigh in favor of a trial continuance.  Plaintiff is making this motion more than one month before the trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and Plaintiff has identified specific discovery that she wishes to obtain.  Moreover, Plaintiff timely filed a motion to compel concerning the discovery, but Plaintiff’s inability to have the motion heard before trial is due to the Court’s impacted calendar.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for the motion to compel or the IDC relating to the motion.  Further, no alternative means are identified to address these issues, and Defendant does not meaningfully articulate any way a continuance will prejudice it.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date. 

However, given the age of this case, and because this will be the third trial continuance, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They should plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly.     

Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 16, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 2, 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. 

Plaintiff 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 8^th day of February 2023