Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 19STCV17606, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17606    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 76

ORDER REGARDING TRIAL READINESS DOCUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF TRIAL

The Court has reviewed the parties’ trial readiness documents and makes the following findings and orders governing the trial.

Local Rule 3.25(f)(1) provides that “[a]t least five days prior to the final status conference, counsel must serve and file lists of pre-marked exhibits to be used at trial (Local Rules 3.151, 3.53, and 3.149), jury instruction requests, trial witness lists, and a proposed short statement of the case to be read to the jury panel explaining the case.  Failure to exchange and file these items may result in not being able to call witnesses, present exhibits at trial, or have a jury trial.  If trial does not commence within 30 days of the set trial date, a party has the right to request a modification of any final status conference order or any previously submitted required exchange list.” (emphasis added.)

The Court’s Final Status Conference and Trial Procedures order (“FSC order”) in this case, which was issued on March 13, 2023 and served on the parties, provides the parties with direction concerning the preparation of trial readiness documents.

The FSC order requires that the parties file a joint witness list that includes time estimates for direct, cross, and redirect examination for each witness.  This requirement is in furtherance of Local Rule 3.25(h), which requires that counsel “provide reasonable and accurate time estimates for trial.”  Without an accurate time estimate, the Court cannot give prospective jurors an accurate time estimate to assess their availability to serve as jurors.

The parties’ joint witness list includes 32 witnesses and provides a trial estimate of approximately 112 hours of testimony.  A trial of that length meets the definition of a long cause trial under Local Rule 2.8(e), although the parties have not made a formal request for transfer to a long cause trial department.  Given the scope of the issues in this case, this trial estimate is unreasonable.  Counsel are undoubtedly aware that in an independent calendar department that has a daily law and motion calendar, the time available for trial generally ranges from 4 to 4.5 hours each day.[1]  Thus, the parties have given the Court what appears to be a five to six week trial estimate.  The Court is concerned that this estimate reflects a lack of serious consideration of the evidence actually necessary for trial, and that counsel have intentionally overestimated the length of trial to provide themselves with leeway.  Overestimation of time in that manner is improper:

Some litigants are of the mistaken opinion that when they are assigned to a court for trial they have camping rights.  This view presumes that the trial judge must defer to the lawyers’ time estimates for the conduct of the trial such that, for example, when examining witnesses, unless a valid objection is made by one's opponent, a party is entitled to take whatever time it believes necessary to question each witness.  This view is not only contrary to law but undermines a trial judge’s obligation to be protective of the court's time and resources as well as the time and interests of trial witnesses, jurors and other litigants waiting in line to have their cases assigned to a courtroom.

. . .

It is incumbent upon trial judges to manage trials efficiently. Efficiency is not necessarily measured by comparing the actual length of a trial with the parties’ original time estimate because parties often overestimate or underestimate a trial’s length. Judges need to be proactive from the start in both assessing what a reasonable trial time estimate is and in monitoring the trial's progress so that the case proceeds smoothly without delay.

(California Crane School, Inc. v. National Com. for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 19-20 (emphasis original).)  In California Crane School, the Court of Appeal observed that the imposition of time limits is a tool that allows a trial court to ensure efficiency:

Trials are a dynamic process without the benefit of a dress rehearsal, which makes forecasting the length of a trial less than precise.  But for those parties and attorneys who are fully prepared for trial and do not waste time with repetitive questioning, cumulative evidence, not having witnesses available, or not having documentary evidence organized and easily accessible, a trial's length is not an issue.  Thus, despite the vagaries of trial, when all parties try a case diligently, there is no reason for time limits.  In all other cases, time limits will provide incentive to be diligent.

(California Crane School, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 20 (emphasis added).)  The Court finds that the imposition of a time limit is required in order to ensure diligence and to exercise the Court’s responsibility “to supervise proceedings for the orderly conduct of the court’s business and to guard against inept procedures and unnecessary indulgences that tend to delay the conduct of its proceedings.”  (Id. at 22.) 

The Court’s consideration of the pleadings and trial briefs, as well as the Court’s experience with jury trials of employment cases, indicates that the parties’ estimate of five to six weeks is unreasonably long.  The Court observes that five to six weeks is twice as long as the estimate that Plaintiff’s counsel gave in their August 27, 2019 Case Management Statement—an estimate that was given before the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication narrowed the issues for trial. 

In calculating an appropriate time limit, the Court has also considered the significant backlog of trials across Los Angeles County; the backlog in this Court’s own trial calendar, which includes many aging cases that are competing for the limited resource of trial days before the cases reach the five-year deadline of CCP § 583.310; and the strain placed on jurors, who in the Court’s experience are increasingly raising financial hardship claims in the post-Covid economy.  The Court finds that a time limit of 12 hours for each side—including opening statements, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and closing arguments—is a reasonable and appropriate amount of time for the parties to complete this trial.[2]

The parties are also advised that they must have witnesses available at all times during trial.  If a party’s witness completes their testimony and that party is unable to call its next witness immediately, the Court will consider remedial measures including, but not limited to deducting any waiting time from the responsible party’s time allocation, or deeming the party without available witnesses to have rested.[3]

The Court’s purpose in imposing a time limit is to ensure that the parties prepare for and conduct the trial with diligence and efficiency.  The Court will consider reasonable requests for upward or downward revision of the time limits, so long as the requestor can show good cause for the revision.  (California Crane School, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 21.)  However, the parties are advised that once trial begins, the Court’s consideration of any requests for additional time will take into account the trial efficiency (or lack thereof) and diligent trial preparation (or lack thereof) of the requesting party.