Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: BC492238, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC492238    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 76

Smile Finders v. Medina

Case No. BC492238

ORDER RE: FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court has reviewed the parties’ trial readiness documents, finds the documents deficient, 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 in this case, which was issued on December 9, 2022 and served on the parties, requires that the parties meet and confer regarding a joint statement of the case to be read to the jury.  The parties failed to file a joint statement of the case to be read to the jury.  Instead, each side filed their own statement of the case.  The statement of the case to be read to the jury is a minor part of the trial readiness documents, but it serves an important secondary purpose:  if the parties cannot cooperate in the preparation of a joint statement, the Court often has a reason to worry about their ability to meet and confer productively on other aspect of the case.

The Court’s Final Status Conference 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 give prospective jurors an accurate time estimate to assess their availability to serve as jurors.  The parties did not file a joint witness list.  The separate witness lists filed by the parties have different sets of witnesses, and (without any apparent meet and confer) purport to predict the time the opposing party will use for cross-examination.  It is the parties’ responsibility, not the Court’s, to determine which witnesses may be called and how long their testimony will take.

The Court’s Final Status Conference 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 to address objections.  The parties did not file a joint exhibit list.  The witness lists filed by the parties do not comply with the Final Status Conference Order, and in particular, do not indicate any objections to exhibits.  It is apparent that the parties did not meet and confer regarding exhibits as the Court required.  This raises a risk that objections will be made at trial without prior discussion among the parties, which may waste the valuable time of jurors while such issues are sorted out.

The Court further notes that Defendants failed to file a trial brief as ordered.  A trial brief helps the Court to understand factual and legal issues that may affect evidentiary rulings, motions in limine, and other aspects of the trial.

The parties have not cooperated with the efficiency purposes of Local Rule 3.25 and the Court’s Final Status Conference Order, because counsel did not meet and confer sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare joint trial readiness documents as ordered.  The timely preparation of trial documents as called for in the Final Status Conference 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 disputes regarding things like jury instructions, admissibility of exhibits, or witness issues.  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 has caused a substantial backlog of trials across the Los Angeles Superior Court, including in this Department.

The lack of diligent and cooperative trial preparation in this case gives the Court concern that the trial will not be conducted in an efficient manner, wasting jurors’ time and injecting additional uncertainty into the scheduling of future trials.  Allowing that to happen would be contrary to the Court’s obligation to ensure efficient management of its trial calendar:

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)

The parties have shown they are either 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’ track record of noncooperation and their noncompliant trial readiness documents, the Court finds that the imposition of a time limit is required in order to ensure diligence.

The Court’s review of the pleadings, the verdict in the previous trial, and the opinion of the Court of Appeal indicates that the claims remaining in this case are not complicated, since the scope of the trial will be constrained by previously adjudicated findings as well as the Court of Appeal’s decision.  Based on its consideration of these factors, the Court rejects the parties’ 15-20 day time estimate (which approaches the length of the jury phase of the first trial in this case) as unreasonably long.  The Court has also considered the significant backlog of trials across Los Angeles County; the Court’s own trial calendar, which includes many cases filed more than four years ago, which are competing for limited trial days before their 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 finds that a time limit of 8 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.

Because the parties failed to meet and confer regarding their objections to exhibits, and Defendant did not file a trial brief, the Court cannot adequately predict the degree to which evidentiary issues may require frequent or extended sidebar conferences.  If sidebar requests become frequent, or if such conferences consume undue amounts of time, the Court will consider deducting the time required for any sidebar conferences from the objecting party’s time allocation.

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  consider remedial measures including, but not limited to deducting waiting time from the responsible party’s time allocation, or deeming the party without available witnesses 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.  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.  (California Crane School, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 21.)  However, allowing extensions of the parties’ time allocation due to delays caused by inefficiency or lack of diligence would defeat the purpose of the time limit.  Therefore, 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.