Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV42482, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42482    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) moves to continue the trial, and all related cutoff dates, which is currently set for May 24, 2023, to July 24, 2023, or to a subsequent date that is convenient for the Court’s calendar.  Defendant Egor Dresviannikov (Dresviannikov) joins Uber’s motion.  Plaintiff Brady Redington (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Uber replies. 

ANALYSIS

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

Here, Uber seeks a continuance of trial to evaluate the expanded scope of Plaintiff’s allegations, to conduct and complete critical fact and expert discovery, to attend mediation, and to adequately prepare for trial.  Uber relies on the declaration of its counsel, Hannah M. Vannetti (Counsel).  Counsel first attests a continuance is needed because Plaintiff is planning to make new allegations of punitive damages against Defendants.  (Declaration of Hannah M. Vannetti, ¶ 4.)  Counsel further argues that adding a punitive damages claim on the eve of trial constitutes a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case. (Ibid.)  Counsel further states that there have been various discovery disputes requiring the Court’s intervention which has delayed discovery and constitute good cause to continue the trial date.  (Id. at ¶ 6.)  For example, Counsel attests Plaintiff unreasonably delayed the deposition of one of Plaintiff’s treating physician.  Further Plaintiff’s inadequate discovery responses necessitated Uber to file a motion to compel further discovery responses which the Court eventually granted.  (Ibid.)  Counsel avers that Plaintiff did not serve supplemental discovery responses until July 29, 2022, and said discovery responses are deficient, requiring Uber to issue several subpoenas.  (Ibid.)  Counsel argues that Plaintiff delayed the deposition of Plaintiff’s wife.  (Id. at ¶ 7.)  Additionally, the first available mediation date with the mutually agreed upon mediator is July 17, 2023, after trial.  (Id. at ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff’s objections to Uber’s notices of independent medical examinations with three separate doctors required Uber to file a motion to compel, which the Court granted.  (Id. at ¶ 9.)  Uber has also had to file a motion compel a psychiatric examination which the Court granted on January 10, 2023.  (Id. at ¶ 10.)  Counsel concludes that Uber will be prejudiced if trial is not continued and the interests of justice will be served by a trial continuance.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Uber’s request for another continuance is unwarranted and must be rejected.  Plaintiff argues that his punitive damages claim does not constitute good reason to continue trial because it is Plaintiff’s burden of proof to obtain evidence in support of the claim, most of which has already been established.  Plaintiff further attests that Uber mischaracterizes the described discovery disputes and contends Defendants’ discovery is complete.  Plaintiff avers that the delay in conducting Uber’s requested IMEs is because of Uber’s dilatory filing of the attendant motions to compel.  Plaintiff also highlights that the motions which Uber describes in relation to written discovery never went to hearing.  Plaintiff adds that Plaintiff’s wife’s deposition was only delayed a few weeks.  Plaintiff concludes that Uber, rather than Plaintiff, has exhibited stalling tactics throughout the litigation.

In reply, Uber notes that Plaintiff does not dispute in his Opposition that he is planning to pursue a punitive damages claim against Defendant.  Thus, Uber again highlights that an expansion of allegations against Defendants by seeking punitive damages against Defendants less than two months prior to trial constitutes good cause to continue the trial date because it is a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case.  Uber adds that it propounded additional discovery on Plaintiff on January 5, 2023, with a due date of February 7, 2023, and to date Uber has not received any responses from Plaintiff.  Uber adds that in light of the recent availability of their mediator on March 16, 2023, Defendants should not be forced to simultaneously continue incurring significant fees and costs preparing for the impending trial.

The Court finds Uber has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Uber’s motion to continue trial and all trial related dates and orders as follows:

·       The trial date, currently set for May 24, 2023, is continued to July 27, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 10, 2023, is continued to July 13, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

·       All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of July 27, 2023.

·       Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

·       No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

Uber shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.