Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 18STCV08938, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV08938    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. INTRODUCTION

On December 19, 2018, plaintiff Terrance Wagner filed this action against defendants Heng Huang and Chengzhi Yang (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from an August 15, 2017, motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff served discovery on Defendants, who failed to respond. Nonparty National Casualty Insurance Company (“National”) moved for leave to intervene, which was granted.  Trial is currently set to begin on August 12, 2022.  On July 11, 2022, National filed this motion requesting to continue the trial date and reopen discovery.  National requests the Court continue trial to the week of October 17 or 24, 2022, or as soon thereafter is convenient. 

National argues that good cause exists to grant the motion because it has been unable to conduct discovery relating to Plaintiff’s two subsequent automobile accidents and four prior worker’s compensation claims, which were previously denied by Plaintiff in his discovery responses as well as at his deposition that took place on June 26, 2020.  National seeks to subpoena documents pertaining to these accidents and claims as well as to depose the drivers involved in the two automobile accidents.  The motion is opposed by Plaintiff. 

1. LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel 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).)

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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).)

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 demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (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, and (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., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

1. DISCUSSION

   National state it recently learned that Plaintiff was involved in two automobile accidents which took place on or about October 24, 2017 (two months after the incident underlying this case) and August 26, 2019.  National also claims it recently learned that Plaintiff has filed at least 4 prior workers’ compensation claims.  Even though Plaintiff was served with discovery requests and his deposition was taken, he had denied any prior or subsequent accident history, any prior worker’s compensation claims, and any prior or subsequent low-back injuries.  Plaintiff claims that as a result of the underlying accident, he has undergone two lower-back surgery with the anticipation of a third, and claims medical liens in excess of $300,000. 

   On September 11, 2019, National filed a complaint-in-intervention.  After defense counsel was relieved around December 2019, National took over the case and has been conducting all parts of discovery.  (Motion, Watten Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  On June 22, 2022, National learned from an “ISO search”, subsequent follow-up by investigators, and its forensic expert, Lou Peck, that Plaintiff was involved in another accident two months after the incident underlying this action, and that the forces in this subsequent accident were approximately 10 times greater.  (Watten Decl., ¶ 6.)  National demanded that Plaintiff produce the vehicle involved in this second collision for inspection and Plaintiff refused, contending that discovery was closed. 

   In opposition, Plaintiff first claims that National is impermissibly seeking “reconsideration of this Court’s July 5, 2022 ruling denying their motion to continue trial.”  (Opp., 1:21-24.)  The Court swiftly rejects this argument.  The ex parte application was denied on July 5, 2022 because the Court ordered National to file a noticed motion. 

   Substantively, Plaintiff claims National’s arguments are meritless because Plaintiff has been truthful in his discovery responses with “no previous or subsequent injuries related to the same body parts at issue for this claim and that no other bodily injury claims were made for any other car accidents.”  (Opp., 2: 1-5.)  Plaintiff claims National has only pulled up property damage claims, which does not impeach or contradict Plaintiff’s previous assertion that he has not made any other claims about bodily injuries.  (Opp., 4:5-13.)  Plaintiff also states that he has not treated with any doctors in connection with these property damage accidents and therefore, the accidents are not relevant to the injuries he claims now.  (Opp., 3:9-12.)  As for the workers’ compensation claims, Plaintiff states one of those claims was a “workers compensation stress related claim primarily” made in 1992.  Plaintiff does not explain the other three workers’ compensation claims that National identifies in its moving papers. 

   Plaintiff asks this Court to believe, without any evidence, that the October 2017 car accident did not involve the “same body parts.”  The Court questions Plaintiff’s credibility in light of his insistence in splitting hairs over “making a claim” for injuries and being injured.  Also, unless Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision where he somehow was not physically present at the time of impact, it is hard to believe that property damage could occur without bodily injury, especially when Plaintiff does not explain any of the factual circumstances of these accidents. 

   On reply, National argues that Plaintiff’s medical treatment records do not reflect claims of pain or injury to his lumbar spine until November 2017, which is after the second collision on October 24, 2017.  Therefore, National contends, this calls into question the cause of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine complaints.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s previous workers’ compensation claims identify injury to his back, back muscles, spine, spinal cord, head, neck, shoulder, and nervous system. 

   National argues that it intends to limit its discovery solely to issues pertaining to these prior workers’ compensation claims and subsequent motor vehicle collisions.  National has obtained records from Plaintiff’s insurance carrier, State Farm, pertaining to the October 2017 collision which reflect a claim that was made by Plaintiff and denied by State Farm on the grounds that Plaintiff was at fault.  National also wishes to inspect the vehicle that was involved in this October 2017 collision, which remains in Plaintiff’s possession, where National’s expert can inspect and download the data from the electronic data recorder.  Last, National intends to depose the driver of the other vehicle involved in the October 2017 collision and intends to depose Plaintiff a second time to question him concerning his prior worker’s compensation claims and the subsequent motor vehicle collisions.  National is confident this discovery can be completed within 60 days. 

   Any prejudice Plaintiff potentially faces as a result from a brief 60-day continuance is outweighed by the prejudice National would face if it were not allowed to inquire about these events which were not disclosed by Plaintiff during the discovery process.  Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for a brief continuance of the trial date and to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of investigating the two car accidents Plaintiff was subsequently involved in, and the 4 workers’ compensation claims Plaintiff previously made. 

2. CONCLUSION

National’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from August 12, 2022 to October 24, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from August 9, 2022 to October 11, 2022  at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  Discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date and discovery is limited to the car accidents involving Plaintiff which occurred on or about October 24, 2017 and August 26, 2019, as well as Plaintiff’s 4 prior workers’ compensation cases identified by National in its motion (Case Nos. ADJ233677; ADJ3006899; ADJ3918352; and ADJ816856). 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.