Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV43889, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43889 Hearing Date: December 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff Nickey Naomi Pineda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Annie Leung (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle negligence.
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On February 14, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 20, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to continue the trial and reopen discovery to be heard on December 20, 2023. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
On October 23, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application in part and continued the trial to January 11, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 11, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial to April 1, 2024 and reopen discovery.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Request to continue trial
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), provides that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(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,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. 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(d).)
B. Motion to reopen discovery
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides:
“(a) 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 under Section 2016.040.
“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
“(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.
“(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
DISCUSSION
A. Defendant's motion to continue trial
Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial to give Defendant time to conduct further discovery. Plaintiff has recently undergone significant additional treatment for her injuries including placement of a spinal cord stimulator. Defendant requires time to obtain the relevant information, present it to experts, and have the experts review the data prior to trial. The Court finds good cause to continue the trial.
B. Defendant's motion to reopen discovery
The Court has considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 and finds that Defendant has shown the necessity and reasons for the discovery and has demonstrated sufficient diligence. Reopening discovery is unlikely to prevent the case from going to trial on the current trial date, interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. Therefore, the Court grants the request to reopen discovery.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Annie Leung’s motion to continue the trial and reopen discovery. The Court continues the trial to April 2, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is March 26, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court reopens discovery. Discovery and all related dates will trail the April 2, 2024 trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is to file a proof of service of this ruling within five days.