Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV11485, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff Kelly Duangrudeeswat (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Long Beach Public Transportation Company (“LBPTC”) (erroneously sued as “Long Beach Transit”) and Rodney Jones (together “Defendants”) for injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred on October 7, 2019.

On October 10, 2023, the Court continued trial to August 30, 2024 in order for LBPTC’s summary judgment motion to be heard before trial. However, the Court declined to extend related discovery and pretrial dates because Defendants failed to put forth grounds to continue those dates. As of the filing of this motion, discovery cut-off dates and all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates remain set to the previous trial date, December 7, 2023.

On October 13, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue all trial related dates, including pretrial deadlines and discovery and motion cutoffs, to correspond to the new trial date. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 1, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.

Based on the previous December 7, 2023 trial date, the applicable pretrial cut-offs are as follows: (1) Fact Discovery - November 7, 2023, (2) Fact Discovery Motions - November 22, 2023, (3) Expert Discovery - November 22, 2023, and (4) Expert Discovery Motions - November 27, 2023. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendants contend that good cause exists to continue trial related dates because Plaintiff is still treating for her claimed injuries, thus delaying Defendants’ ability to complete necessary discovery in advance of trial and ostensibly preventing Plaintiff from providing a settlement demand to allow the parties to pursue a possible informal resolution of the case. Defendants contend that absent the continuance, they will be unable to prepare a competent defense, determine their potential exposure in this matter, or proceed with informed settlement discussions to potentially obviate the need for trial within the timelines based on the prior trial date.

Specifically, Plaintiff has continually postponed completing her deposition that she sat for on May 5, 2023, inhibiting Defendants’ ability to obtain information necessary to conduct medical and neurological IMEs. (Sullivan Decl. ¶¶ 8-11.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff has declined to provide a damages demand because her injuries have prevented her from assembling a complete picture of her damages in the case. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 10.) As of October 13, 2023, Plaintiff had not provided dates for the completion of her deposition. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 12.) Defendants contend that they have been diligently pursuing and participating in the discovery process. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 14.) Furthermore, Defendants contend that absent the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition and any necessary IMEs, Defendants cannot retain appropriate experts or provide them sufficient information to form opinions and evaluations of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries or treatment and care. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 16.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the proposed continuance as Plaintiff has not completed her own discovery in advance of the current cut-offs, and the requested continuance will not unnecessarily prolong proceedings, interfere with the parties’ ability to proceed with trial on the date currently set, or impose any undue burden or expense. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 19.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that good cause does not exist because Defendants have failed to pursue discovery for the past six months. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s proposed dates for a second session of her deposition. In June 2023, Plaintiff contacted Defendants to schedule her deposition and on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff offered July 28, 2023 for her deposition; however, Defendants were silent and never responded. (Ortega Decl. ¶15.) Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s timely notice and request for bus inspection. Plaintiff noticed the inspection in September 2023 and requested confirmation of the inspection four times; however, Defendants refused to confirm the demand until Plaintiff made known her intention to file a motion to compel with sanctions. (Ortega Decl. ¶ 2-4.) Defendants eventually provided one available date for the inspection that was well after the discovery cutoff date and, by so doing, agreed this inspection would proceed after discovery has been closed. (Ortega Decl. ¶ 2-4.) Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to timely or fully respond to written discovery requests despite six demands since May 2023, forcing Plaintiff to file two motions to compel, set for hearing November 22, 2023. (Ortega Decl. ¶ 5-6.)

In reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to provide dates she is available to complete the deposition, apart from a single date for which counsel for Defendants was unavailable. Defendants contend that, contrary to Plaintiff’s statements in opposition, Defendants have been pursuing discovery over the past six months to the

extent possible. After the first session of Plaintiff’s deposition on May 5, 2023, Counsel for Defendants served subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records on Plaintiff’s additional providers, PT at the Beach and Platinum Orthopedic Specialists. (Ortega

Decl. ¶ 10) (Reply, Sullivan Decl. ¶ 5.) However, Defendants contend that any IME before Plaintiff provides a complete picture of her damages would be premature and likely require additional examinations. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff herself served additional discovery on October 18, 2023, to which responses are due after the discovery cutoff. (Sullivan Decl., Exs. B, C.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Here, the Court finds that good cause exists to continue all related pretrial dates to relate to the current trial date of August 30, 2024. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she will be prejudiced by granting this extension while Defendants have demonstrated that they will be prejudiced if they are not able to complete the deposition of Plaintiff and conduct necessary IMEs regarding Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court