Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV38789, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38789    Hearing Date: September 23, 2024    Dept: 29

Addison v. Baires Trucking LLC
22STCV38789
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On December 14, 2022, Corey Addison (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Baires Trucking LLC, Carlos A. Baires, Carlos Delgado (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident occurring on January 5, 2021.

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of June 12, 2024.

On March 21, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add RCS Trucking as Doe 1. The Court, at the request of Plaintiff, entered a dismissal of RCS Trucking on March 11, 2024.

On March 11, 2024, R.C.S. Trucking, Inc. was added as Doe 26, 51 and 76. Default was entered against R.C.S. Trucking, Inc. on May 8, 2024.

On May 23, 2024, the Court, on the stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to September 25, 2024.

On September 16, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. The Court, on Defendants’ ex parte application, shortened time and set the hearing for September 23.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 19.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  (Ibid.)  Circumstances that may support a finding of good cause include: 

“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 

(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; 

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) 

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider: 

“(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.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿ 

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)¿¿¿ 

Discussion

Defendants seek to continue trial and reopen discovery.  According to Defendants, they learned for the first time on September 9, 2024, that four days earlier, on September 5, Plaintiff had a procedure to insert a trial spinal cord stimulator device.  (Harmon Decl., ¶¶ 2-10.)  According to documents that Defendants received on September 13, the operation was reported to be successful, and it is expected that Plaintiff will receive a permanent stimulator at a cost of $120,000.  (Id., ¶ 10.)

Defendants’ counsel seeks to continue trial and to reopen discovery so that Defendants may subpoena “all the doctors and facilities associated with this surprise procedure, … as well as the non-retained psychotherapist’s record of plaintiff’s visits shortly prior to his recent surgery.  (Id., ¶ 12.)  In addition, Defendant state that their experts “will need … to review all the records related to this procedure.”  (Id., ¶ 13.)  Defendants seek a continuance of six months “at least.”  (Ibid.)

As a threshold matter, despite some of Defendants’ rhetoric, there was no late disclosure by Plaintiff.  To the contrary, according to Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff had a procedure on September 5 and his lawyers provided Defendants with documents related to the procedure on September 9 and 13.

Moreover, Defendants’ contention that they were, essentially, blindsided by a recent, unanticipated, development is not supported by the record.  In April 2024, Plaintiff responded to a supplemental interrogatory and stated (1) that he was still treating and (2) he may eventually need a spinal cord stimulator.  (Odedra Decl., Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff also produced a copy of the report of Lawrence Miller, M.D., dated February 29, 2024, which also states the same.  (Id, Exh. 2.)  In May 2024, Plaintiff sent a settlement demand with an analysis of expected future medical care that specifically referenced a spinal cord stimulator at a cost of more than $1.1 million.  (Id., Exh. 3.)  Similar information was again provided on August 6, 2024, with Plaintiff’s expert witness designation.  (Id., Exh. 5.)

Despite being on notice of the possibility or probability of the need for a spinal cord stimulator, and the cost of the procedure, Defendants did not take discovery on this issue.  Defendants did not subpoena any medical records in 2024 and did not take the deposition of any of Plaintiff’s treaters or experts.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

After reviewing all of the argument and all of the evidence, and considering all of the relevant circumstances, it appears that Defendants had sufficient notice of the possibility or probability that Plaintiff would need a spinal cord stimulator months before trial.  Defendants were not diligent.  To the contrary, Defendants did not conduct discovery on this issue, as it appears that they simply chose to disbelieve Plaintiff’s contentions that he was suffering from ongoing medical issues as a result of the accident.

The Court finds Defendants have not established good cause for a continuance of trial or for a reopening of discovery.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery and continue trial.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.