I. Background 

On April 8, 2022, plaintiffs Juan Jose Perez (“Perez”) and Adriana S. Osorio (“Osorio”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Nathaniel Miranda for damages arising from an automobile incident. Trial is currently set for March 6, 2024. 

On January 31, 2024, the City filed the instant motion to continue the trial date by 60 days and to reopen discovery. Defendants aver that the City’s vehicle inspection was offered to be completed in February 2024, but that this is after discovery cut-off. Additionally, the City contends Plaintiffs served a demand to inspect the City’s vehicle on February 9, 2024 (after discovery cut-off), and served supplemental responses two weeks before discovery cutoff identifying new medical providers and witnesses. Therefore, Defendants require more time to adequately prepare for trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that the City had ample time to complete the City’s and Plaintiffs’ vehicle inspections, depose the seven newly identified witnesses by Plaintiff Osorio, completely two newly identified witnesses by Plaintiff Perez, subpoena newly identified medical providers listed in Plaintiff’s perez’s supplemental discovery responses, and to complete Plaintiff Perez’s IME with Dr. Ludwig. Plaintiffs argue that the City has not been diligent in conducting discovery in a timely manner.   

In reply, the City argues Plaintiffs have not stated how they would be prejudiced by a continuance, and that Plaintiffs will benefit from a trial continuance to complete discovery. The City asserts Plaintiffs have already agreed for the newly identified witnesses to be deposed after the discovery cut-off, but the City avers there is not enough time to complete all pending discovery prior to the current trial date of March 6, 2024. Further, the City contends Plaintiffs have not provided a deposition date for their life care planner Jennifer Craigmyle.   

II. Legal Standards 

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).) 

CCP § 2024.050 states: 

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.¿ 

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:¿ 

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿ 

¿ 

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.¿ 

¿ 

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.¿ 

¿ 

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.¿ 

III. Discussion 

Here, the City seeks a brief continuance of two months to complete all remaining discovery at issue. The inspection of the City’s vehicle was completed on February 13, 2023, and thus this particular issue is moot. The Court is not persuaded that there has been a showing of a complete lack of diligence to deny continuing the trial date and reopening discovery. Further, there is no apparent prejudice to any party by this request for a short continuance. A continuance in itself is not prejudicial, especially as the case matter is not yet old, and it appears that there is necessary discovery pending that can be resolved within a relatively short period of time. After considering the arguments and issues raised, the Court finds good cause to briefly continue the trial date and re-open discovery. Accordingly, the City’s is GRANTED.   

The March 6, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 1, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.   

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 28th day of February 2024