Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV36145, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36145    Hearing Date: March 2, 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 Target Corporation (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for March 30, 2023, and all trial related dates, for at least 120 days to a date convenient for this Court.  Plaintiff Jessica Rodriguez (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Defendant 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, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow Defendant to obtain all necessary records from Plaintiff’s medical providers, review said records, depose treating physicians, participate in settlement negotiations, and prepare for trial.  Defendant advances the declaration of Peter C.L. Chen (Counsel), attorney of record for Defendant. 

Counsel avers that Defendant initially propounded discovery on Plaintiff on November 5, 2021.  (Declaration of Peter C.L. Chen, ¶ 3.)  In response to that initial set of discovery, Plaintiff identified eighteen medical providers.  (Ibid.)  Counsel further states that on October 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion) surgery was recommended.  (Declaration of Peter C.L. Chen, ¶ 4.)  On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff supplemented her prior responses, identifying, eight additional providers listed below, and revealing that she underwent ALIF surgery.  (Ibid.)  However, Plaintiff produced only limited records regarding the surgery, omitting operative report and bills for the surgery center and surgeon.  (Ibid.)  Counsel highlights that not only are the records incomplete and consist merely of excerpts, no records were produced for three of the newly identified providers, including the hospital where the surgery was performed.  Counsel concludes that information from these newly identified providers is crucial to the claims at issue in this lawsuit and unless the trial is continued, Defendant will have little to no time to review these records, depose treating physicians, and prepare for trial.  (Declaration of Peter C.L. Chen, ¶ 5.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has made her best efforts to provide all records and bills as they come in and has kept Defendant aware of her ongoing treatment and provided any records and billing upon receipt.  (See Declaration of Curry, ¶¶ 4-11.)  Plaintiff further attests that there has not been an unexpected change in the case as Plaintiff has made Defense aware of the October 22, 2022, surgery since its initiation last year.  Plaintiff has provided the majority of these records to Defense.  Plaintiff concludes that because Defendant has the majority of the pertinent records and others will be provided prior to trial, there is no real harm, and this motion should be denied.  In addition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has had ample time to depose Plaintiff’s treating physicians since they were first identified in December 2021.  Plaintiff states, however, that Defendant has not exercised diligence in deposing said treating physicians.  Finally, a mediation is set for March 24, 2023, which will give the parties an opportunity to participate in meaningful settlement discussion before trial as currently set.

In reply, Defendant emphasizes that while Plaintiff provided Defendant with some updated medical and billing records, these records were limited and incomplete.  Defendant states that Plaintiff’s claimed medical specials exceed $500,000 and Plaintiff is demanding significantly more than $500,000 to settle her claims.  Thus, Defendant concludes it must be provided every opportunity to not just obtain full and complete subpoenaed records, but have sufficient time to review these records and for its experts to formulate their opinions based on such records.  Finally, Defendant notes that mediation is a mere three days before the current trial date which means the parties will have incurred all trial and trial-related expenses by the time mediation commences.

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 based on Plaintiff’s recent surgery and continuing medical treatment. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for March 30, 2023, is continued to August 3, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 16, 2023, is continued to July 20, 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 August 3, 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. 

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