Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV12593, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12593 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.
Background¿
On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff Larry Bates (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for negligence and common carrier negligence arising from an incident that occurred on August 11, 2021, wherein Plaintiff’s vehicle and a bus owned and operated by Defendant collided.
On June 30, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial. No opposition was filed.
When the motion came on for hearing on July 28, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a brief continuance to possibly reach an agreement with the Defendant regarding the trial and related dates. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court continued the motion to August 11, 2023.
On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant replied on August 1, 2023.
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 to continue trial and all related deadlines to October 12, 2024, arguing that good cause exists because defense counsel has been attempting to obtain plaintiff’s medical records from the VA Hospital. (Rai Decl., ¶ 3.) The VA Hospital has requested an authorization to be signed with certain parameters, but plaintiff’s counsel has not agreed to provide the authorization. (Ibid.) Defendant contends that these records are critical to determine the extent of aggravation of plaintiff’s pre-existing neck and back injuries which are the same body parts at issue in this lawsuit. Defendant has a pending motion hearing date to compel plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of these records without limitation scheduled on June 17, 2024. (Id., ¶ 4.) Defendant also argues that if its motion is granted, it will need sufficient time to obtain these records, schedule a defense medical examination of plaintiff, and conduct any additional discovery necessary to prepare the case for trial.
In opposition, Plaintiff states that he has attempted to resolve the dispute and that a significant portion of the records at issue are likely irrelevant. (Quincey Decl., ¶¶ 6-12.) Plaintiff also argues that he would suffer prejudice from the delay in the resolution of his case. (Opp. at 4:13-15.)
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial. The parties have a dispute about discovery and, due to the Court’s impacted calendar, the motion is not set for hearing until June 2024. That motion should be heard before trial. The Court understands Plaintiff’s general concern about delay, but the Court finds that the risk of undue prejudice to Defendant in not obtaining necessary discovery relating to Plaintiff’s claims outweighs any prejudice to Plaintiff in a delay in the trial.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.
The trial date is advanced and continued to mid October 2014. The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 10/02/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 10/16/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.