Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 23STCV14637, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court include provisions governing trial readiness documents. 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 Order (“FSC Order”), which was issued on May 30, 2024 and served on the parties, requires the parties to file certain trial readiness documents no later than 10 days before the FSC, and to deliver copies of the trial readiness documents at least three court days before the FSC.

The FSC Order directs that the parties file a joint witness list that includes time estimates for direct, cross, and redirect examination for each witness. This implements the mandate of Local Rule 3.25(h) 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 Court’s FSC Order also requires the parties to meet and confer about potential objections to exhibits, and to state those objections on the exhibit list, in order to minimize the waste of time during trial due to sidebar conferences or other methods of dealing with objections not previously raised.

The timely preparation of trial documents as called for in the FSC Order and Local Rule 3.25 helps the Court to ensure that trial will proceed expeditiously, without unnecessary mid-trial delays caused by the need to address jury instructions, admissibility of exhibits, or witness issues. Accomplishing this goal of efficiency requires that the parties make the effort to meet and confer before trial in an effort to resolve issues. A witness list with time estimates gives the Court guidance on the parties’ expectations for the length of trial; an exhibit list including objections gives the Court comfort that the parties have reviewed each others’ exhibits and attempted to meet and confer about objections; trial briefs give the Court a basis to assess the parties’ views of the issues to be tried and a basis to assess the reasonableness of any time estimates given by the parties.

Timely preparation of trial documents also allows the Court to assess the comparative readiness of multiple cases set for trial on the same day, which is especially important at this time because the COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial backlog of trials in this Department.

As of May 9, 2025, the parties have not filed joint or separate trial readiness documents, and none of the parties have filed a declaration indicating that they attempted to meet and confer about the preparation of trial readiness documents.

Based on the parties’ current state of trial preparation as shown by the lack of filed trial readiness documents, it appears that the parties have not diligently met and conferred in order to meet the efficiency goals of Local Rule 3.25 and the FSC Order.

Paragraph 9 of the FSC Order requires counsel to meet and confer regarding the preparation of joint trial readiness documents. It is not clear to the Court that this occurred, because no trial documents were filed, nor any declaration of counsel indicating that an effort to meet and confer has been held.

The trial efficiency purposes served by Local Rule 3.25 and the Court’s FSC Order have been defeated in this case because the parties failed to file a compliant joint witness list, joint exhibit list, and trial briefs in advance of the FSC as required by Local Rule 3.25(f) and the FSC Order.

Paragraph 17 of the FSC Order requires the parties to meet and confer regarding objections to the admissibility of exhibits, and file a joint exhibit list including each party’s objections to exhibits. The parties have not filed any exhibit lists. Since the parties have apparently failed to meet and confer in order to resolve objections to exhibits and prepare a joint exhibit list stating their remaining objections, the Court is concerned that the parties’ lack of cooperation in exhibit preparation might result in a waste time at trial.

Pursuant to the FSC Order and Local Rule 3.25(f)(1), the Court orders that the parties may not present any exhibits at trial other than items subject to judicial notice, or items as to which the parties have stipulated.

The FSC Order also 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 efficiently allocate its resources and manage its trial calendar.

In the Court’s experience, an Independent Calendar courtroom such as Department 76 is typically able to allocate no more than four to four-and-a-half hours of each six hour court day to trial proceedings. This case was set for a two-day nonjury trial based upon the trial estimates given by the parties in their case management statements. Based on the lack of diligent preparation for trial, the Court must impose a time limit to ensure that this case is completed within two trial days.

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 (italicized emphasis original).)

The Court’s review of the pleadings, consideration of the factual and legal issues involved in this case, and experience in managing jury trials, indicates that efficient and cooperative attorneys should be readily capable of completing this trial in the 2 days allocated. However, the parties appear to have been unwilling or unable to cooperate, to meet and confer on issues, and to prepare diligently for trial as directed by the Local Rules, California Rules of Court, and this Court’s Final Status Conference Order. In California Crane School, supra, the Court of Appeal noted:

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).) Given the parties’ lack of demonstrated trial readiness, the Court finds that the imposition of a time limit is required in order to avoid wasting the valuable resource of trial days in this Department, and to ensure efficient allocation of judicial resources.

In considering 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.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that a time limit of 4 hours for each side for opening statements, witness examination, and closing arguments is appropriate, as this will ensure that each party has about 1 day to present its evidence and argument after a jury has been selected. For the reasons noted above, this is sufficient time to give the parties a full and fair opportunity to present its case, provided that they exercise diligence and efficiency. This time limit may be extended or reduced for good cause shown, either by party request or on the Court’s own motion. However, in considering a party’s request for additional time, the Court will consider the extent to which that party has prepared diligently and used its trial time efficiently without unnecessary waste of time.

The parties are also advised that they must have available witnesses 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 either deduct any waiting time from that party’s time allocation, or deem that party to have rested.[1]

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. Allowing extensions of the parties’ time allocation when they have failed to act with diligence would defeat the purpose of the time limit. Therefore, the parties are advised that once trial begins, any delays caused by a party’s failure to follow the trial procedures set forth in the FSC Order may result in the Court deducting the time of such delay against that party’s time allocation.

[1] “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).)