Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV02972, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02972    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Elexsia Hood (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on February 5, 2024 against Defendant California Department of Human Resources (“Defendant”). On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) race discrimination – FEHA, (2) retaliation – FEHA, and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation – FEHA.

Trial in this matter is currently set for June 25, 2025.

Defendant filed a signed stipulation to continue the trial. The Court denied the stipulation on April 25, 2025 for lack of good cause.

Defendant now moves for an order to continue the trial “currently scheduled for June 25, 2025 to October 25, 2025, or as soon thereafter as may please the Court.” Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Discussion

“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (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).)  

Defendant asserts that good cause exists for continuing the trial date. Defendant argues that “the interests of justice would be best served by a continuance, as a continuance would allow the parties to complete deposing witnesses, resolve their dispute over production of Plaintiff’s mental health records, and allow Defendant to test the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s evidence by a motion for summary judgment.” (Motion, pp. 2:26-3:1.)

Defendant has submitted a declaration from its counsel, Erich W. Shiners, addressing issues related to depositions and discovery. On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Shiners that Plaintiff was pregnant and expected to give birth in late September 2024. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties agreed to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition for early 2025 to allow her time to recover from childbirth. (Shiners Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) On November 22, 2024, Shiners’ office formally noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for January 21, 2025. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the deposition was later postponed due to the Palisades fires. (Shiners Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Ultimately, Shiners conducted Plaintiff’s deposition on April 10, 2025. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 13.)

On January 30, 2025, Defendant served a subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records on her mental health care provider. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 11.) After Plaintiff expressed concerns about the release of these records, Defendant and Plaintiff began discussions on how to address these concerns while still allowing for the production of the documents. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 11.) As of the filing date, the medical records have not been produced. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 11.)

On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served four deposition notices for Defendant’s employees. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 10.) From April 14 to April 16, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel was able to depose three of the employees but could not complete the final deposition due to a global Zoom outage. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 14.) The parties are currently discussing a new date for the final employee’s deposition. (Shiners Decl., ¶ 14.)

Two other circumstances relevant to the Court’s determination are “[w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance” and “[w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(2), d(9).) Defendant states that “all parties have stipulated to the continuance … [and] no previous continuance has been sought in this matter.” (Motion, p. 2:23-26.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance. There is only one remaining deposition to complete and the production of Plaintiff’s medical records should be resolvable in short order. If the parties cannot resolve the medical records issue, they can reserve an informal discovery conference with the Court.  If no timely date is available, the parties can apply ex parte to have the IDC advanced.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue the trial date is denied.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  May 19, 2025                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court