Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV07317, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07317    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 20, 2020, plaintiff Pouria Rasoulitadayon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Aidan McRae Kelly (“Kelly”) and Ryan W. Kelly (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from an automobile collision that occurred on or about June 12, 2018.  Trial was previously scheduled for August 15, 2022, but continued to October 31, 2022 after the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a continuance on July 25, 2022.  The Court directed Plaintiff to file a noticed motion if he wished to reopen discovery. 

Three weeks later, on August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order continuing trial, the final status conference, and all related discovery and motion cut-off deadlines.  Plaintiff proposes that trial be set for February 21, 2023 so that Plaintiff may depose and Defendants’ experts. 

Defendants only oppose the request to continue the discovery cut-off deadline. 

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

Plaintiff requests to continue trial and the discovery cutoff date so that Kelly, as well as Defendants’ experts, may be deposed.  As Defendants do not oppose continuing trial, the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion in this regard.  

With respect to reopening discovery, Defendants point out in their opposition brief, Plaintiff does not address the pertinent legal standard in his moving papers and provides no explanation for why Plaintiff has not served any deposition notices for Kelly or Defendant’s experts.  However, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff explains in his reply brief (albeit without any sworn evidence) that his counsel, Alberto Daniel Ramos, was recently assigned this case only a few months ago. (Reply, 3:15-17.)  The Court additionally notes that based on the joint stipulation filed on April 2, 2021, it appears that Kelly was on active duty in the United States military and deployed overseas until around September or October 2021.  Therefore, the delay in deposing Kelly is not egregious as Defendants imply in their opposition brief.  Furthermore, reopening discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Kelly and conducting expert discovery would not be excessively burdensome, while precluding Plaintiff from deposing Kelly would be prejudicial. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that a brief continuance of the trial date and all related discovery cut-off deadlines to be the best result for all parties.  

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from October 31, 2022 to February 7, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from October 17, 2022 to January 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are based on the new trial date of February 7, 2023.  All parties are to immediately inform all percipient and expert witnesses of the new trial date.  As this is the third continuance, no additional continuances should be expected. 

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.