Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV10790, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10790    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff Jhon E. Gonzalez-Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Allen D. Ye (“Defendant”) for negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about June 6, 2019.

On August 4, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s ex parte application to continue trial and all trial related dates.  The Court noted that a motion to extend or reopen discovery must be filed as a noticed motion and indicated that the Court would not continue discovery deadlines pursuant to an ex parte application.

On August 5, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 18, 2022.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks a court order continuing the September 16, 2022, trial to January 13, 2023, or as soon thereafter as may be available on this Court’s calendar.  Defendant also requests a continuance of all trial-related dates.

Defendant argues there is good cause to continue the trial because the parties need additional time to complete discovery, including expert discovery.  Defendant indicates Plaintiff’s deposition has not taken place and is noticed for August 15, 2022, only two days before the August 17, 2022, discovery cut-off date.  Defendant provides that Defendant’s experts are still in the process of completing expert opinions and investigations and the parties are currently engaged in the scheduling of the parties’ expert depositions.  Defendant further indicates that counsel will be engaged in another trial in Riverside County that is scheduled to begin on September 9, 2022, and end on September 15, 2022, the eve of the trial date in this matter.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for continuing the trial or the discovery cut-off.  Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to explain why his experts need more time to review documents and formulate their opinions, failed to specify what the alleged scheduling conflicts with the experts are, and failed to explain why it would be impossible to complete all expert depositions prior to trial.  Plaintiff provides that Plaintiff’s counsel remains committed to working with Defendant’s counsel to formulate a deposition schedule so that all depositions can be completed before the current trial date.  Plaintiff indicates that although Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for August 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was unavailable on that date due to a trial conflict, but has proposed September 7, 2022, to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff argues Defendant has provided no explanation as to what additional non-expert discovery, if any, remains to be completed or why it was not completed before the cut-off date.  Plaintiff argues Defendant’s counsel’s failure to diligently complete necessary discovery does not constitute good cause for a trial continuance. 

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant does not have “new counsel” because the law firm and handling partner remain unchanged and the mere change in associates does not justify a continuance of a trial.  Plaintiff argues Defendant’s counsel has failed to explain when the trial in the Riverside County matter was set, why Defendant’s counsel did not move to continue the trial earlier if he knew of this conflict, why Defendant’s counsel allowed trial in the Riverside County matter to begin so closely to trial in this action, or why Defendant’s counsel has not sought to continue trial in the Riverside County matter rather than continuing trial in the present action.  Plaintiff further argues that, even if Defendant’s arguments are valid, Defendant has failed to explain why a four-month trial continuance is necessary when it appears a continuance of two to four weeks would suffice.  Plaintiff asserts he will be prejudiced if trial is continued as he has diligently completed all necessary discovery except expert discovery, which can and will be completed by the current expert discovery cutoff date.

It is undisputed that non-expert discovery has already been cut off in this matter.  Therefore, to the extent the request for trial continuance is based on the need to complete non-expert discovery, particularly Plaintiff’s deposition, the Court would first need to find whether there is good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.

CCP section 2024.050 provides that “[o]n 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)   “In exercising its discretion to grant of deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: [¶] (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[,] [¶] (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Id., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

As pointed out by Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to explain why Plaintiff’s deposition was not completed prior to the discovery cut-off date and failed to demonstrate diligence in completing Plaintiff’s deposition.  To this extent, Defendant has failed to show good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.  As Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for reopening discovery, Defendant has also failed to demonstrate good cause for continuing the trial date based on the need to complete non-expert discovery.

With respect to Defendant’s argument that there is good cause to continue the trial date because expert discovery still needs to be completed, the Court finds Defendant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate expert discovery is unable to be completed prior to the September 1, 2022, cut-off.  Defendant indicated the parties were engaged in scheduling expert depositions, but did not show such scheduling means expert discovery cannot be completed in time.  Defendant only provides that expert discovery “may not be completed prior to the current trial date.”  (Motion, p. 3: 5-6.)  As for Defendant’s claim that his experts are still in the process of completing expert opinions and investigations, there is insufficient explanation regarding why this has yet to be completed at this stage of the action or that Defendant’s experts will be unable to form their opinions and complete their investigations prior to the current trial date.  Defendant has thus failed to demonstrate good cause for continuing the trial date based on the need to complete expert discovery.

As for Defendant’s counsel being engaged in another trial scheduled to end on the eve of the trial in this matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant failed to sufficiently explain why Defendant did not move to continue trial earlier based on this ground and whether Defendant made any attempts to continue the trial in the other matter.  Despite this, the Court finds that the prejudice to Defendant if Defendant’s counsel has inadequate time to prepare for trial in this matter outweighs the prejudice Plaintiff would suffer if trial is continued.  The Court thus finds good cause to continue the trial due to Defendant’s counsel’s engagement in another trial scheduled to end on the eve of the trial in this matter.

While the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date, Defendant’s request to continue all trial-related dates is denied based on Defendant’s failure to demonstrate good cause to reopen discovery.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

          Defendant’s request to continue all trial-related dates is DENIED.

The Court orders trial continued from September 16, 2022 to October 17, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 27.  The Final Status Conference is continued from September 2, 2022 to October 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 27.  Discovery remains cut off.

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.