Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV30327, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30327    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 74

Jonathan Moye v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., et al.

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and Related Trial Deadlines

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Jonathan Moye (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (Defendants).

            In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: disability discrimination; failure to engage in the interactive process; failure to accommodate; retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

            On March 7, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue the trial and related dates and deadlines.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants request that the court (1) continue the trial date, (2) continue the final status conference, (3) continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (4) vacate and reset all trial related deadlines to correspond with the new trial date. On March 22, 2024, the court continued only the final status conference and trial because case law obligated the court to hear Defendants’ motion for summary judgment before trial. However, the issue of discovery deadlines remained. Defendants ask the court to reset the discovery cut-off dates because the parties have not resolved discovery disputes and Defendants have not taken Plaintiff’s deposition yet.

A party’s excused inability to obtain essential evidence despite diligent efforts can be grounds to continue a trial and related dates. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6).) But Defendants’ inability to comply with the original discovery deadlines was due to Defendants’ delay. That is, Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 16, 2022. Even so, Defendants waited until October 24, 2023, to propound discovery on Plaintiff. (Avidisyans Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendants also waited until March 29, 2024, to request dates of availability for Plaintiff’s deposition. (Avidisyans Decl., ¶ 12.)[1] Moreover, Defendants delayed producing documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents. (Avidisyans Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendants have not demonstrated good cause to reset the discovery deadlines to correspond with the continued trial date.

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

            Defendants shall give notice.