Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1169357, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling
The motion to continue trial filed by Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Maryam Parman, Trustee of the Maryam Parman Revocable Trust Dated January 19, 2009 (“Parmam”), and opposed by Calculated Risk Analytics, LLC and Michael Thompson (Collectively “CRA”) is GRANTED.
Under CRC 3.1332(c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).
The jury trial in this matter is presently set for October 9, 2023. There are currently pending multiple discovery motions including (1) a motion to compel RPDs scheduled for 9/12/23, (2) a motion to compel deposition scheduled for 12/7/23 and (3) a motion to compel written discovery scheduled for 1/4/24. These discovery motions will be heard by the discovery referee appointed by the Court. CRA has also recently filed objections to the Referee’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), No. 4 for a court hearing on 12/21/23. There is no way that the above can be completed, along with compliance with resulting orders and follow-up fact and expert discovery, with the current trial date.
Given the pleadings history in this case, it cannot be said that Parmam has not been diligent. The Court will not recount the history of discovery motions, R&Rs, Objections to R&Rs, and Court Orders but would refer the parties to the register of actions. It is clear that discovery in this matter has proven more complicated and subject to more disputes between the parties than anticipated by the Court when the present trial date was set. CRA contends in its opposition to the instant motion that a discovery referee was not necessary to address the 15 discovery motions and that such has resulted in delay. However, this issue has been fully briefed, argued and ruled upon. Parmam argues that CRA has used the discovery process to thwart her diligent efforts to obtain discovery. Her arguments are supported by the transcript of the Referee wherein he stated at different times with respect to CRA’s responses, “this is just ridiculous” and “this is the most obstructive response to discovery that I have personally witnessed.” (Exh. 25 at pgs. 21 and 31) Based on CRA’s delay of discovery of evidence Parmam seeks for a trial on the merits, a continuance of the trial date is appropriate. “[D]ecisions about whether to grant a continuance or extend discovery ‘must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When [efficiency and fairness concerns] collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.” (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246)
With regard to prejudice, CRA does not argue it will be prejudiced by a trial continuance. On the other hand, the prejudice to Parmam if the trial is not continued is readily apparent.
CRA objects to the two supplemental declarations submitted by Mr. Klein on behalf of Parmam on the grounds that they were filed late. The Court notes that Parmam also filed her opposition to the motion to continue on 8/28 as opposed to 8/25 when it was due. Accordingly, both sides are late in their respective filings. Parman points out that the late filings by Parman were quite voluminous but many of documents are those with which the parties are already familiar such as referee reports, orders and transcripts from Referee hearings. To the extent the supplemental filings contain correspondence between the parties, such was not considered by the court for purposes of this motion. Otherwise, CRA’s objections are overruled.
The court finds that Parmam has made an affirmative showing of good cause and therefore the motion is GRANTED. When the court finds good cause to continue the trial date, “[T]he same circumstances should generally constitute good cause to reopen discovery after a trial date has been continued.” (Hernandez v. Superior Ct. (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1248) Accordingly, the 10/9/23 jury trial is continued to 4/2/24 and all dates, including discovery, law and motion, and experts, will be tied to the new trial date.
Counsel for moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.