Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV11234, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11234    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff Jessica K. Quintana filed this action against Defendants HCC Service Company Inc. (“HCC”), Tokio Marine America Insurance Company, Tokio Marine Management Inc., and Cindy Chow-Snavely.

On May 23, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation to dismiss Tokio Marine America Insurance Company and Tokio Marine Management Inc.

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants HCC Service Company Inc., Tokio Marine America Insurance Company, Tokio Marine Management, Inc., and Cindy Chow-Snavely.  Despite the prior stipulation to dismiss them, Tokio Marine America Insurance Company and Tokio Marine Management Inc. were again included as Defendants in the case caption.  On June 23, 2022, HCC filed an answer to the FAC.

At the August 2, 2022 Case Management Conference, the Court scheduled the Final Status Conference for September 5, 2023, and the jury trial for September 18, 2023.

On August 3, 2022, the Court sustained Cindy Chow-Snavely’s demurrer and ordered her dismissed.

On April 17, 2023, the Court denied HCC’s ex parte application to continue trial and all related dates.

On April 24, 2023, HCC filed a motion to continue trial and all related dates for a trial on November 13, 2023 or thereafter.

A court may grant a continuance of trial upon a showing of good cause.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  Good cause includes a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6).)  The court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

HCC contends that it has been diligently engaged in written discovery and the production of documents, but no depositions have been taken.  (Motion at p. 5; Stone Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.)  The parties had a mediation scheduled for May 8, 2023.  (Stone Decl. ¶ 7.)  If the case does not settle, then HCC needs additional time to conduct further necessary discovery, including the deposition of Plaintiff.  (Stone Decl. ¶ 10.)  Based on the current trial date, HCC’s deadline to file a motion for summary judgment is June 5, 2023.  (Stone Decl. ¶ 10.)

HCC filed its answer to the FAC on June 23, 2022.  HCC provides no explanation for why it has not yet taken any depositions, especially the deposition of Plaintiff.

According to Plaintiff, on January 5, 2023, HCC served its first and only notice of deposition of Plaintiff, scheduled for February 15, 2023.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 4.)  Twelve days before the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked if the deposition was still going forward, but HCC’s counsel “need[ed] more time” to take her deposition because he wanted to get medical records first.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel sent two follow-up emails about rescheduling.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2.)  On May 2, 2023, HCC’s counsel proposed dates in May for Plaintiff’s deposition.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 7.)  On May 3 and 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed some dates, but as of Plaintiff’s May 5, 2023 opposition, defense counsel had not served a deposition notice.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 7.)

On May 9, 2023, HCC served a First Amended Notice of Plaintiff’s deposition for May 19, 2023.  (Stone Suppl. Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A.)  This was a date that Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed as available.  (Demerjian Decl. ¶ 7.)

HCC has reserved an August 30, 2023 hearing for its motion for summary judgment, and it is facing a filing deadline of May 26, 2023.  (Reply at p. 4.)  The Court notes that the actual hearing reservation is for August 10, 2023.  (Demerjian Decl., Ex. 4.)  Regardless, HCC has time to file its motion after Plaintiff’s deposition and before the filing deadline.  The delayed deposition date appears to be a problem of HCC’s own making.

HCC also argues that a continuance will benefit all parties.  (Reply at pp. 4-5.)  Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Cindy Chow-Snavely, HCC’s Person Most Qualified, and HCC’s witness Carrie Daligou, but these depositions have not yet taken place.  (Reply at p. 4; Stone Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff’s discovery progress, or lack thereof, does not support HCC’s assertion of its own diligence and need for a trial continuance, especially when Plaintiff opposes the continuance.

The Court finds that HCC has not shown diligence in seeking discovery, and it has not shown good cause to continue the trial date.

However, the Court will now be dark during the week of September 18, 2023, so the jury trial would need to be rescheduled even in the absence of HCC’s motion.

The motion to continue trial to November 13, 2023 is GRANTED IN PART.  The Final Status Conference is continued to ________.  The jury trial is continued to ___________.  All discovery and motion deadlines remain based on the original September 18, 2023 trial date.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

       Dated this 18th day of May 2023