Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV17067, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17067    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 16, 2019, plaintiff Ryan Andrew Bergstrom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Loera Trucking and Sandor Balmore Brito (collectively, “Defendants”).  Trial is currently scheduled for January 3, 2023.  On November 14, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date to any date after May 2023, and for the discovery and motion cut-off dates to be based on the new trial date.  The motion is opposed. 

II.          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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendants request a continuance to conduct additional discovery into Plaintiff’s injuries.  Defendants argue that more time is needed to acquire and review Plaintiff’s medical records from providers who are providing further treatment.  Defendants also request more time to compel Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental discovery requests.  

Defense counsel, Carmen R. Selame, also declares that Jennifer Tseng’s trial calendar is severely impacted into the early half of 2023 with 12 trials scheduled in November, 11 trials in December, 21 trials in January, 13 trials in February, 17 trials in March, 13 trials in April, 8 trials in May, and 4 trials in June.  Moreover, Ms. Tseng will be on a prepaid family vacation from mid-December to mid-January 2023, and the law office will be closed from December 19, 2022, to January 2, 2023. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that this action has been pending for 3 years, Defendants have not been diligent in pursuing discovery, and it is unclear what specific information Defendants are seeking. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has sent additional medical records through email without explanation, and without attaching the records to verified responses to discovery.  (Selame Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.)  However, Defendants have not explained how Plaintiff’s unsolicited medical records impact their theory or understanding of the case.  Presumably Plaintiff has alleged that he will be needing future medical treatment; therefore, the fact that Plaintiff continues to treat is not, in and of itself, a reason to continue trial.  Also, Defendants received Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental discovery in June 2022, the Court continued trial in July 2022 to permit Defendants to file a motion to reopen discovery.  But Defendants did not actually file this motion until November 14, 2022.  Last, the Court is skeptical of Ms. Tseng’s trial schedule.  There are no details about any of these cases, such as the case names, when they were filed, or whether any of the cases are ready for trial.  Instead, it appears that the basis for this request for a continuance is Ms. Tseng’s prepaid vacation and the fact that her law office is closed for several weeks during the holiday (both of which facts tend to further undermine the assertions about a heavy trial schedule).  There is also no evidence that there are no other trial attorneys available to take this case to trial. 

In light of the foregoing, Defendants have not shown good cause to continue trial or reopen discovery. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

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.