Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: BC646512, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC646512    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: 14

Instant Motion

            All parties move this court jointly for an order continuing the trial date for 90 days.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are to be treated as firm. However, Rule 3.1332(c) provides that, although continuances are “disfavored,” requests should be considered on an individual basis. That subsection also includes a non-exhaustive list of possible grounds for a continuance.

            The parties offer three grounds for this motion: (1) the need to take additional depositions, (2) the need for experts to review certain data, and (3) the need for mediation. None of these reasons is sufficient to justify the continuance of this case.

            On the first point, counsel does not clearly identify to the court which depositions they need to take, and why those depositions have not already occurred. The notice of motion refers to “3 limited depositions” and the Declaration of Suzanne M. Henry mentions “a few limited fact depositions.” But nowhere is there an actual list of the witnesses, a description of their expected testimony, or an explanation for why the depositions haven’t been taken yet.

            On the second point, while counsel indicates that Defense only produced the data for expert review on December 8, 2023, the reason given for that date is the need for Defense’s expert to review the data before Defense produced it. (Motion p. 4:20-25). No explanation is offered for why it took Defense’s expert so long to do this. But a month is surely enough time for Plaintiff’s expert to review this data. Expert discovery is routinely completed in the final month before trial, and counsel have offered no reason that that can’t happen here. If counsel’s concern is the briefing schedule on the motions in limine, the court would entertain a stipulation to alter that schedule.

            On the third point, a general desire to mediate cannot be the basis for continuing a case like this one. The case will be almost exactly seven years old on its trial date. It has already been mistried once, and even that was 18 months ago. If the parties truly wanted to settle the case, they could and should have done so by now.

Conclusion

            Because the parties have failed to identify sufficient grounds to justify a continuance in this case, the motion is DENIED.