Case Number: BC641793 Hearing Date: March 14, 2018 Dept: 47

Martha Ortiz v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR FOR HER DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Walt Disney Company

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered various instances of sexual harassment.

Defendant The Walt Disney Company moves for an order continuing the trial date and compelling Plaintiff to appear for her deposition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because Defendant only reserved a hearing on a motion to continue trial and only paid one filing fee, the Court will not hear the motion to compel deposition, which must be reserved as a separate hearing with a separate filing fee paid.

Defendant The Walt Disney Company’s motion to continue the trial date is GRANTED. The trail date is CONTINUED to November 12 , 2018. The final status conference is set for November 5, 2018. All cut-off dates shall be measured relative to the new trial date.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Continue Trial Date

Defendant The Walt Disney Company moves for an order continuing the trial date and compelling Plaintiff to appear for her deposition. Because Defendant only reserved a hearing on a motion to continue trial and only paid one filing fee, the Court will not hear the motion to compel deposition, which must be reserved as a separate hearing with a separate filing fee paid.

Defendant moves for a continuance of the trial date from August 13, 2018 to at least November 12, 2018 to allow the summary judgment motion to be heard on September 18, 2018 (the first available hearing date), with sufficient time for the parties to prepare for trial.

To the extent Defendants will be prejudiced in the ability to bring a summary judgment motion pursuant to CCP § 437c, this interest outweighs the policy set forth in the California Rules of Court that trial dates are firm:

[T]he fast track rules must give way to the statutory right to bring a summary judgment motion. When state rules conflict with statutes, it is the state rule that must give way. (Iverson v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal. App. 3d 544, 547–548 [213 Cal. Rptr. 399] [striking down rule 317(a) of the California Rules of Court to the degree to which it required filing opposition papers five “court days” before the hearing when the relevant statute allowed filing such papers five “calendar” days before the hearing].) That principle would seem to have particular force in a case such as this one, where the state rule, by its terms, is merely a “goal” and courts are only directed that they “should” process all cases within two years of filing.

Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923 (bold emphasis added).

Thus, good cause for the requested continuance of the trial date exists.

In ruling on a motion for continuance of the trial date, among the other factors the court is to consider are set forth in CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11), and include as relevant to this motion:

The proximity of the trial date – Here, the trial date is currently set for August 13, 2018—5 months from the date this motion is to be heard.

Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party – There has been no prior continuance of the trial date.

The length of the continuance requested – At least three months—from August 13, 2018 to November 12, 2018.

The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance – There is no feasible means to address the problem given the Court’s calendar congestion, other than to advance the hearing date on the MSJ. Moreover, the parties need additional time to conduct discovery, including taking Plaintiff’s deposition.

The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance – There does not appear to be any prejudice which would result from the continuance.

Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance – It does not appear that Plaintiff has stipulated to a continuance.

Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance – The interests of justice are served by continuing the trial date to permit Defendants to have their MSJ heard, as well as to give the parties additional time to conduct discovery.

Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application – This action was filed on November 23, 2016. If trial is held in November 2018, the case would be two years old.

Conclusion:

Taken together, the foregoing factors weigh in favor a finding good cause for continuance of the trial date. Thus, the motion to continue the trial date is GRANTED. The trial date is CONTINUED to November 12, 2018. The final status conference is set for November 5, 2018. All cut-off dates shall be measured relative to the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court