Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21STCV29033, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29033    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: I

The application to continue the trial is DENIED. 

This case was filed almost three years ago, on August 6, 2021.  The gist of the complaint is that the decedent was improperly prescribed opioids by Dr. Honzel.  Two pharmacies, Taft and moving party United, filled the prescriptions.  They allegedly failed to heed proper procedures, which (had they been followed) would have alerted the pharmacies to the fact that the prescriptions were improper.  There was a series of demurrers, the last of which was definitively resolved in November 2022. 

Defendant contends that discovery remains to be done.  The court does not see appropriate diligence.  First, nothing stopped defendant from conducting discovery from the day it was served.  But even if one assumes that defendant was confident that it would be dismissed until the final demurrer was resolved, defendant will still have had two years between that date and the trial.  The court understands that defendant served discovery in March 2024 to which it claims plaintiffs have not made adequate response, but even so, there is time to resolve that and the court does not know why defendant waited until March 2024 to serve the discovery.  In short, there was adequate time to get the case ready.  The court notes that there was a time it would have granted at least a short continuance.  But that was when the court had 400 or 500 cases on its docket.  The docket is now 1050 cases and the court simply lacks the flexibility to move cases down the line, elbowing out other cases where all parties have been diligent.  The court is aware of the summary judgment motion set for less than 30 days before the trial.  The court will hear that motion on its current date notwithstanding the fact that it is slightly less than 30 days before trial.  The motion is based on the statute of limitations.  Obviously, the court expresses no opinion or hint as to the merits of that motion at this time.

The court does note that the current estimate is a 20 day jury trial.  The court will inquire into that estimate at the hearing, as it seems long.  The court is not saying that it is long, but the court is uncertain that it is accurate, either.