Tentative Ruling
Re: Daniel Porter v. Fresno Community Hospital and Med. Ctr.
Superior Court No. 15CECG03720
Hearing Date: March 6, 2018 (Dept. 503)
Motion: Defendants Regents of the University of California, University
Neurosurgery (“UNA”), Joyce Fields-Keene, M.D., Joan Voris, M.D.,
Daniel Miller, M.D., and James Davis, M.D.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment or Adjudication

Tentative Ruling:

To continue the hearing to March 29, 2018.

Explanation:

If the opposing party shows by declaration that essential evidence “may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion” or continue it for a reasonable period, or “make any other order as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h); see Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389,

395.) However, a continuance is not mandatory where no declaration is submitted or where it is inadequate. (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716; Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 643-644.) Even absent a sufficient declaration, the court must determine whether the party requesting the continuance has nonetheless established good cause. (Ibid.) This decision is ultimately within the court’s discretion, but the court should exercise its discretion in favor of granting a continuance: “The interests at stake are too high to sanction the denial of a continuance without good reason.” (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634; see also Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765-766.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek a continuance to depose current and former UNA employees. They provide the declaration of Attorney Sedoo A. Manu in support thereof. (SOE, filed: 2/20/18 Tab 4 – Manu Dec.) Plaintiffs argue that the depositions may provide evidence of the involvement of individual Defendants in the treatment, care, and management of treatment for Kyle. (Id. at ¶6.) The depositions may also provide evidence of how the individual Defendants instructed UNA staff to lie to patients, including Plaintiffs, about the whereabouts of Dr. Verrees. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs explain that the depositions are essential to their opposition because they are needed to answer contentions made by Defendants that Plaintiffs have no evidence that Defendants instructed individuals to lie. Plaintiffs have also already taken steps to schedule the depositions. (Id. at ¶10.)

Other factors weighing in favor of a continuance include that the case has only been pending for approximately two years; the discovery cutoff is not until March 30, 2018 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020); adequate time exists to hear the motion for

20

summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)); the motion to continue was procedurally proper and timely (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h)); there have been no prior continuances for this reason; and the evidence sought is essential. The crux of this case is whether or not Defendants lied. And although Defendants also make an argument based upon the statute of limitations, the evidence discovered via deposition may impact that analysis, as well.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KAG on 03/05/18.
(Judge’s initials) (Date)