Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case 21STCV25787 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

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 November 11, 2021 and served on the parties, provides the parties with direction concerning the preparation of trial readiness documents.

The FSC order requires the filing of trial briefs identifying legal and factual issues regarding the trial, so that the Court is able to prepare for trial and assess the time reasonably necessary to complete the trial. The parties did not file trial briefs.

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 8 witnesses and provides a trial estimate of approximately 28.5 hours of testimony. 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 nine to ten day trial estimate, allowing time for voir dire, opening statements and closing arguments. The Court finds that this is an overestimation of the time reasonably necessary to conduct the trial, which the Court must address:

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.

(California Crane School, Inc. v. National Com. for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 19-20.) 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 protect against an inefficient trial that wastes jurors’ time and judicial resources.

The Court’s consideration of the pleadings, as well as the Court’s experience with jury trials of Song-Beverly Act cases, indicates that this case is readily capable of being tried within a week. 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 7 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. Per the guidance of California Crane School, 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 efficiency (or lack thereof) and diligent trial preparation (or lack thereof) of the requesting party.

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 20 motions in limine. These motions generally appear to be form, boilerplate motions directed at common anticipated issues in Song-Beverly cases, and as a group do not reflect any individualized thought or consideration of facts or evidence particular to the instant case. The Court’s FSC order instructs parties that such boilerplate motions are disfavored. The filing of boilerplate motions like Plaintiffs’ increases the cost of litigation without achieving any commensurate increase in trial efficiency.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ motions in limine do not appear to be proper motions in limine, since these motions do not seek to exclude particular items of evidence. Instead, these motions seek to exclude broad categories of evidence and/or argument, which are not helpful. The motions are denied without prejudice to assertion of objections that may be made during trial.

[1] Any proceedings that must be held outside the presence of the jury, such as sidebar conferences, jury instructions conferences, or logistical or evidentiary discussions with counsel, will reduce the amount of that 4 to 4.5 hours that can be used for productive time with the jury: opening statements, testimony, and arguments.

[2] 8 hours for each side is roughly equal to 2 trial days for each side, and thus the Court’s time limit would allow four days for the parties’ presentation of evidence and argument. Adding one to two days to account for voir dire and any potential delays would keep this case within the average range of five to seven days for jury trials in Los Angeles County.

[3] “Witnesses should be available at all times. It is clearly preferable to inconvenience one or more witnesses standing by in the hallway than to bring a trial to a halt because no witnesses are available. When a trial stops for that reason, it adversely impacts the time and resources of the court, jurors, parties and attorneys, not to mention those litigants waiting for a courtroom to open up for their case.” (California Crane School, supra, 226 Cal.App.4^th at 20 (footnote omitted).)