Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV02108, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV02108 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 23SMCV02108
MOTION: Motion
to Continue Trial
HEARING DATE: 10/4/2024
Legal
Standard
Pursuant to California Rules of
Court (CRC), rule 3.1332(a), “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases,
the dates assigned for a trial are firm.
All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” Under CRC Rule 3.1332(b), “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 CRC Rule 3.1332(c),
“[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a
continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance. Circumstances that may
include good cause include:
(1) The unavailability of an
essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a
party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial
counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(4) The substitution of trial
counsel, but only 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.”
CRC
Rule 3.1332(d) sets forth other factors that are relevant in determining
whether to grant a continuance.
Analysis
Defendant Katherine Farmer moves to
continue the trial, and all related dates, from November 4, 2024, to March 3,
2025. Plaintiff agrees to a continuance of trial.
Defendant first argues that good
cause exists due to the parties’ excused inability to obtain essential testimony,
documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. Defendant
explains that there is an ongoing discovery dispute concerning their request
for production of documents, set two. The discovery concerns Plaintiff’s two
audio-recorded IMEs. Defendant served four document requests for any and all
audio recordings and video recordings taken during Plaintiff's neurological
medical examination with Arthur P. Kowell, M.D., Ph.D., and taken during
Plaintiff's orthopedic medical examination with Nicholas E. Rose, M.D., FAAOS,
FACS. Plaintiff objected on privacy and work product grounds. Following meet and
confer efforts, Defendant reported that the parties are at an impasse.
Defendant now asserts that there is insufficient time to address this dispute
through an informal discovery conference followed by a potential motion to
compel further before trial.
First, the Court disagrees that
this discovery issue cannot be resolved in time for trial. As the court noted
in the ex parte application to continue trial, the issues could be resolved
prior to trial if the parties exercised due diligence. The Court finds no
reason to change its perspective—this issue could have been resolved prior to
the trial given reasonable discovery efforts. Moreover, the outstanding
discovery is of secondary importance. The disputed RPDs seek recordings of
an IME. Defendant does not explain how recordings of an IME are “essential” to
the material issues in the action. Thus, the Court is not inclined to grant any
continuance for this discovery. Furthermore,
the Court has an IDC order that governs the procedure for requesting and
setting an IDC. Simply filing a form
request for an IDC does not comply with the Court’s IDC procedure.
Defendant also cites unavailability
of his preferred trial counsel Matthew S. Jones and second-chair trial counsel,
Abaigeal A. Loving, due to prepaid vacations. Defendant does not explain when
these vacations were pre-paid. As the court noted in the ex parte application
ruling, counsel agreed to the trial dates and knew that they were firm.
Defendant would also like to settle
the action short of trial. Defendant notes that the parties attended mediation
but were unable to settle the case. Defendant requests a referral to the Resolve
Law Los Angeles MSC program. Defendant does not explain the likelihood of a
settlement by further mediation. The parties were unable to settle in the first
mediation. Also, Defendant does not explain why a mediation could not go
forward with another mediator prior to the calendared trial date. Finally, a
firm trial date is more likely to spurn a reasonable settlement.
The Court notes a few factors weigh
towards a continuance. The continuance is a modest four months, and the trial
will still proceed within two years if granted. Additionally, there have been
no prior trial continuances. The Court also concurs that the parties have
engaged in extensive discovery, including the conducting of Plaintiff’s
deposition, several rounds of written discovery, issuance of subpoenas, and two
Independent Medical Examinations. On the other hand, this factor also shows
that the case is near ready for trial. In addition, there are no available
trial dates until December 2025. The
Court therefore sees little reason for a continuance.
Defendant
does not show good cause for a trial continuance. Accordingly, the motion is
DENIED.