Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV32328, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32328 Hearing Date: January 3, 2023 Dept: 29
Anthony Espinosa; Amanda Villa v. Eric Tiongson; Does 1 to 30
| Thursday, January 3, 2023 |
[OPPOSED]
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Eric Tiongson
Background
Anthony Espinosa and Amanda Villa (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against Eric Tiongson (Defendant) on September 1, 2021 for injuries sustained during a motor vehicle versus pedestrian incident. Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on December 8, 2022. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 19, 2022, and Defendant replied on December 22, 2022.
Trial is set for March 1, 2023.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant will suffer immediate and significant prejudice if the trial continuance is not granted, as he will be forced to incur significant fees and costs when there has been an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.
Opposing Arguments
Defendant is prematurely moving to delay this case even further for another five months to gather evidence the Defendant has had ample time to propound. The Court should not allow any further delay. Defendant has failed to show good faith efforts to obtain discovery, or to enter into substantive settlement negotiations that may lead to resolution of this matter prior to trial. Defendant has used their own failure to timely obtain discovery as an excuse to continue trial.
Reply Arguments
There is good cause for this continuance by Defendant of the trial date and all trial-related dates. In opposition, Plaintiffs have provided no credible or legitimate basis for the Court to deny the continuance.
Legal Standard
Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause. Pursuant to Rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”
Discussion
Here, trial is two months away, and Defendant has not conducted significant discovery. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) Defendant represents discovery requests were propounded on Plaintiffs and provided Plaintiffs with an extension, but Plaintiffs failed to serve responses and subsequently failed to meet and confer. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant states Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery necessitated Defendant’s cancelation of Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiffs state they extended Defendant’s discovery deadlines, but that Defendant declined to extend the same professional courtesy, instead opting to move the Court for a continuance. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9.) To this point, Defendant failed to comply with discovery. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs also accuse Defendant of propounding burdensome discovery and refusing to confer after Plaintiffs objected to the discovery request. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Finally, Plaintiffs represent that Defendant unnecessarily canceled Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶ 10.)
A party’s failure to conduct discovery through no fault of their own is good cause to grant a continuance. Moreover, it is “practically impossible to show reversible error in the granting of a continuance,” and trial courts may be reversed to refusing to grant a continuance if their actions deny a party an opportunity to present their case fully and fairly. (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007; Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140; Palomar Mortgage Company v. Lister (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 236, 239; Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.) Notwithstanding the ongoing discovery dispute, the Court errs on the side of granting a continuance.
Defendant requests a continuance to August 1, 2023, which is five months after the date currently set for trial. Under these circumstances, a five month continuance is excessive, especially as Plaintiffs have voiced concern of unnecessary delay. Therefore, the Court grants a continuance to __________, 2023 and encourages the parties to settle their discovery dispute informally.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant Eric Tiongson’s motion to continue trial is granted.
Trial is continued to __________, 2023. All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.
TENTATIVE
Defendant Eric Tiongson’s motion to continue trial is granted.
Trial is continued to August 17, 2023. All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.
Legal Standard
Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause. Pursuant to Rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”
Discussion
Here, trial is two months away, and Defendant has not conducted significant discovery. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) Defendant represents discovery requests were propounded on Plaintiffs and provided Plaintiffs with an extension, but Plaintiffs failed to serve responses and subsequently failed to meet and confer. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant states Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery necessitated Defendant’s cancelation of Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Motion, Radusic Decl. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiffs state they extended Defendant’s discovery deadlines, but that Defendant declined to extend the same professional courtesy, instead opting to move the Court for a continuance. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9.) To this point, Defendant failed to comply with discovery. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs also accuse Defendant of propounding burdensome discovery and refusing to confer after Plaintiffs objected to the discovery request. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Finally, Plaintiffs represent that Defendant unnecessarily canceled Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Opposition, Guiab Decl. ¶ 10.)
A party’s failure to conduct discovery through no fault of their own is good cause to grant a continuance. Moreover, it is “practically impossible to show reversible error in the granting of a continuance,” and trial courts may be reversed to refusing to grant a continuance if their actions deny a party an opportunity to present their case fully and fairly. (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007; Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140; Palomar Mortgage Company v. Lister (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 236, 239; Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.) Notwithstanding the ongoing discovery dispute, the Court errs on the side of granting a continuance.
Defendant requests a continuance to August 1, 2023, which is five months after the date currently set for trial. Under these circumstances, a five month continuance is excessive, especially as Plaintiffs have voiced concern of unnecessary delay. Therefore, the Court grants a continuance to August 17, 2023 and encourages the parties to settle their discovery dispute informally.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant Eric Tiongson’s motion to continue trial is granted.
Trial is continued to August 17, 2023, at 8:30 AM.
Final Status Conference is continued to August 3, 2023, at 10:00 AM.
All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.