Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV40358, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV40358    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 29

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance. 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to continue trial from January 19, 2023 to July 10, 2023 or a convenient date thereafter. Defendant contends that good cause exists because, unless the trial date is continued, Defendant will not be able to conduct necessary discovery despite her efforts to timely litigate the case. The Court agrees.

I. Good Cause Exists

            According to Defendant, Plaintiff has not cooperated with discovery requests, thereby forcing Defendant to seek court orders to obtain discovery. Because the January 19, 2023 trial date is roughly one month away, Defendant will not be able to conduct discovery she deems is necessary to the issue of damages before the onset of the trial.

                        A. IME and Deposition of Plaintiff

            Defendant claims that following the continuance stipulated to on July 20, 2022, Plaintiff did not cooperate with discovery requests to produce Plaintiff’s new medical providers or medical records pertaining to Plaintiff’s migraines. Plaintiff contends Defendant should have immediately subpoenaed Plaintiff’s medical records and Plaintiff’s neurologist for deposition. However, Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not identify her new medical providers until September 6, 2022. Defendant then issued subpoenas to Plaintiff’s new providers, seeking to review those records ahead of a second IME and second deposition of Plaintiff. However, those business records were not expected until early November.

            With that in mind, in early October, Defendant reached out to Plaintiff to request a short continuance and schedule the second IME and deposition. Plaintiff did not agree to a short continuance. Additionally, despite agreeing to inform Defendant by October 26, 2022 of an agreeable date for the IME and deposition, Plaintiff did not follow through. Thereafter, Defendant unilaterally set the dates for December 8 and 9, 2022. No response or objection to the notice of deposition or IME was received by November 10, 2022. On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served objections to Plaintiff’s IME and deposition and for the first time raised that Defendant had not obtained a court order for the IME or deposition. On December 5, 2022, the two parties met and conferred and Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that Plaintiff could not travel to California for the December 8 and 9 IME and deposition.

            Given that both parties agreed to the last continuance in order to allow Defendant additional time to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s migraines, and the fact that Plaintiff has not timely cooperated with requests to schedule an IME and deposition regarding the migraines, the Court finds that there is good cause on these grounds to continue this motion.

                        B. Hearing on Motion to Compel

            Additionally, Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of the person most knowledgeable and custodian of records for the treatment facility St. Charles Surgical Center could not be scheduled until April 10, 2023. Defendant contends that this deposition is essential to the issue of damages because this surgical facility which treated Plaintiff routinely provides adjustments to lien patients such as Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant seeks the adjusted, actual value of the services provided to Plaintiff.

            The Custodian of Records for St. Charles Surgical Center submitted to a deposition on August 8, 2022. The Custodian received a subpoena for documents in 19 categories but Defendant has not received those documents to date. Therefore, Defendant filed a motion to compel those documents, for which hearing could not be set until April 10, 2023.

            On these grounds as well, the Court finds good cause exists to continue the trial to allow for the Court to resolve the request for documents from the Custodian of Records for St. Charles Surgical Center.

Conclusion

            Based on this, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial date.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued to July 10, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., and the FSC is continued to June 25, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.  All discovery and motion cutoff dates are ordered to follow the new trial date.

            Defendant is to give notice.