On ¿March 21, 2019¿, plaintiff Adriana Villanueva, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Dulce Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed this premises liability action against Defendants. 

Trial is currently scheduled for March 6, 2023. The trial date related discovery and motions deadlines remain related to the previous January 9, 2023 trial date. 

Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the trial and related dates. Defendants, Montebello Unified School District, Blanca Martinez, Leticia Garcia, and Lorraine Villasenor oppose the motion. 

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Id., rule 3.1332(d).) 

On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)    

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).) 

Plaintiff moves to continue trial and all related dates to a date beyond the current trial date of March 6, 2023. Plaintiff represents that good cause exists for a continuance because the deposition of Defendants’ expert, Talin Babikian, is still outstanding. Further, Defendants still have to take the depositions of some of Plaintiff’s experts. Defendants oppose the motion arguing that the second deposition of Babikian did not go forward because Plaintiff emailed terminating the deposition and stating it was not necessary. Further, Defendants argue that they requested dates for Plaintiff’s expert availability, but were only provided with dates after the previous January trial date. In reply, Plaintiff argues that she only canceled Babikian’s second deposition because of Defendants’’ lack of cooperation, and has made diligent efforts to provide and obtain availability dates of her experts, some of which were refused by Defendants due to another trial and scheduling conflicts.  

Upon review of the briefs and declarations submitted, it appears that Babikian’s complete deposition is still outstanding and although Plaintiff canceled the January deposition date, it appears it was done due to Defendants’ insistence that discovery is already closed. The Court notes that the initial deposition was terminated early due to defense counsel’s schedule. Further, the depositions of Plaintiff’s experts remain outstanding due to availability and scheduling conflicts, notwithstanding months of efforts made by all parties. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. The motion is GRANTED.