Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV27286, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27286    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 23, 2021, plaintiff Jaime Suarez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Cesar Berroa (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 8, 2019.  Trial is currently scheduled for January 20, 2023.  On October 28, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date, final status conference, and all cut off dates.  In the alternative, Defendant requests that the Court extend the discovery and motion cut-off dates to an unspecified date after March 2023.  At this time, the first available trial date after March 2023 is April 26, 2023. 

On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On November 29, 2022, Defendant filed a reply brief.

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

Defendant requests a continuance on the grounds that an orthopedic medical evaluation of Plaintiff cannot be conducted by his medical expert, Charles Rosen, M.D. (“Dr. Rosen”) until January 3, 2023 and the current discovery cut-off date is December 21, 2022.  Also, Defendant states that Plaintiff’s primary treating facility, Corner Clinic, is no longer in business and was not divulged in written discovery.  Defendant contends that he needs additional time to obtain these records.  There have been no previous continuances of the trial date. 

Plaintiff opposes the request for a continuance and argues that there is no good cause for a continuance because Defendant purposefully selected a physician whose schedule was too busy to complete the examination within the allotted time for discovery.  Plaintiff states that Defendant was informed of his orthopedic injuries as early as August 2022 and claims Defendant could have secured an orthopedic surgeon at that time instead of waiting until October after Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to disclose Corner Clinic was a treating facility in his written discovery but only argues that Defendant has not shown that he has pursued the records from Corner Clinic with diligence and how additional time will be beneficial. 

On reply, Defendant argues that he has the right to choose his defense expert and emphasizes that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any prejudice from a brief continuance.  The Court agrees that a brief continuance of the trial date will not prejudice Plaintiff.  Further, due to Plaintiff’s undisputed failure to disclose Corner Clinic as a provider in written discovery, Defendant now must undergo the additional burden of acquiring Plaintiff’s medical records from Corner Clinic, which will necessarily take time and perhaps involve a motion for an order compelling their compliance with the subpoena. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from January 20, 2023 to April 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from January 6, 2023 to April 12, 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.