Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV25277, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25277    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Felix Macias’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to June 22, 2023. All discovery and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).) 

Other relevant considerations may include: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; [¶] (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 or application for a continuance; [¶] (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; [¶] (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; [¶] (7) 

The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; [¶] (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; [¶] (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [¶] (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and [¶] (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

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 for a trial continuance from February 16, 2023, along with all related deadlines, to a date four months beyond the currently set trial date. Defendant argues that good cause exists because Plaintiff delayed serving Defendant for nine months and thus, Defendant has not had a full and fair opportunity to develop his defense in this matter, including obtaining Plaintiff’s complete medical record, a medical examination of Plaintiff, and the retention of experts to offer opinions on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that Defendant’s assertion that he has not had an adequate opportunity conduct discovery, and that he has been diligently litigating this case is objectively false. Plaintiff contends that over the past seven months (from the time defendant filed his answer to the filing of plaintiff’s opposition), defendant has had every opportunity to conduct any discovery he wished (which included taking the plaintiff’s deposition and propounding written discovery). Defendant never issued any subpoenas for any records whatsoever. Defendant never attempted to conduct an Independent Medical Examination of plaintiff. Defendant made an affirmative statement by way of his expert designation (on November 22, 2022) that he “does not presently intend to offer the testimony of any expert witness.” Plaintiff argues he will be prejudiced if the trial is continued because his experts have already cleared their calendars based on the current trial date. Plaintiff also argues he will be severely prejudiced if all discovery is reopened, because plaintiff’s experts have already completed all of their work, and formulated all of their opinions for trial based on the discovery that has taken place. Thus, a trial continuance would cost him thousands of dollars in fees.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial. Granting the continuance will allow Defendant to engage in further discovery, as it has not been completed. Further, the Court notes that Defendant has not even had a full year to litigate this case. Additionally, defense counsel will not be associated with this case and needs time to reassign the matter. Moreover, Defendant argues it would be prejudiced as he is unprepared to go to trial. Plaintiff argues that he would be prejudiced by a trial continuance because his experts have cleared their calendars, however, he does not state for example that if trial is continued, his experts would be unavailable. Moreover, the costs of conducting discovery are not the kind of prejudice this Court will consider, especially in light of the fact that Defendant argues he has not completed discovery. These costs would have been incurred in any event if Defendant had enough time to prepare for trial. Thus, trial is continued to June 22, 2023. All discovery and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Trial is set for June 22, 2023, at 8:30 AM.

Final Status Conference is set for June 8, 2023, at 10:00 AM.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.