Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV30030, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30030    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Juana Alejos Camacho (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained after allegedly falling on Defendant’s bus.  Trial is currently set for July 6, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to December 1, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.    

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendant states that on January 17, 2023, Plaintiff appeared for a mental examination with Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D. (“Dr. Kalechstein”), but Plaintiff refused to complete the first of two scheduled sessions, which involved neuropsychological testing.  Defendant states that Dr. Kalechstein’s policy is to retain custody of any recording made of the tests and release it only to a licensed psychologist, but Plaintiff refuses to complete the testing portion unless a copy of any audio recording is delivered directly to her or her attorney.  Defendant asserts that it has filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to attend a rescheduled first session of the mental exam to complete the testing.  The motion is set for hearing on July 6, 2023, which Defendant asserts was the earliest available date for the motion. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Kalechstein improperly refuses to allow Plaintiff to record the mental exam, and that Plaintiff has offered to enter into a protective order regarding any recordings, but Dr. Kalechstein has refused.  Plaintiff argues that the trial should not be delayed due to Defendant’s expert’s failure to comply with the Code. 

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to cooperate with completing her mental exam, and Defendant asserts that its counsel has never had to deliver a recording of raw test data to trial counsel.  Defendant contends that the parties have been unable to resolve this dispute, so a trial continuance is required to allow Defendant’s motion to compel to be heard.    

The relevant factors weigh in favor of a continuance to allow Defendant’s motion to compel to be heard before trial.  Defendant timely filed its motion to compel relating to Plaintiff’s mental exam, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for its motion to compel.  However, Defendant does not establish good cause for a more than six-month continuance.  Accordingly, the trial date will be continued approximately four months to allow Defendant’s motion to be heard.  Given the age of this case, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all discovery accordingly. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The May 26, 2023 trial date is continued approximately four months to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 12, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  Only discovery relating to Defendant’s motion to compel mental exam and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 15^th day of March 2023