Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV30587, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30587    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 12, 2020, plaintiff Mathew T. Childs (“Plaintiff”) filed this motor vehicle negligence action against defendant City of Culver City (“Defendant”).  Trial is currently scheduled for February 23, 2023.  Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the trial date, but does not specify the date. The earlier filed ex parte Application requested a date in September 2023 that is not available.  The motion is unopposed. 

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 represents that after meeting and conferring at length with counsel for Defendant, the parties recently reached an impasse as to the discoverability of significant areas of inquiry and a number of material documents sought by Plaintiff in Requests for Production (Sets 3 and 4) and Special Interrogatories (Set 2) as well as the Requests for Production which accompanied the deposition notice of Joseph Betts. (Traut Decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff needs the contested written discovery before trial, and before counsel can take the depositions of Joseph Betts and Samantha Blackshire, current and former employees of Defendant, respectively. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Sets 3 and 4) and Special Interrogatories (Set 2) on November 30, 2022, but the soonest it can be heard by the Court is February 27, 2023, which is four days after the trial date. (Id. at ¶3.) In the meantime, Plaintiff is waiting on resolution of these discovery disputes to take the depositions of Joseph Betts and Samantha Blackshire. (Id. at ¶4.) The Betts and Blackshire depositions were previously noticed and set in October 2022, however, upon defendant's refusal to answer interrogatories or produce documents which will be examined at the depositions, they were taken off calendar pending resolution of the written discovery disputes. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial date to enable time to hear the motion to compel discovery, to obtain that requested discovery, and then to use that discovery during depositions of Joseph Betts and Samantha Blackshire. Plaintiff requests the trial be continued to a date that is mutually convenient to the Court and parties and that all related dates are continued in accordance with the new trial date. Defense counsel could not be reached to determine whether they would stipulate to a continuance, although they stipulated to two prior continuances. Defendant has not opposed the motion.

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and related dates for Plaintiff to have his discovery motion heard, obtain any appropriate discovery, and conduct the depositions of Betts and Blackshire.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from February 23, 2023 to October 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from February 9, 2023 to September 19, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.  

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.