Case Number: BC709541 Hearing Date: August 20, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue the Trial Date and All Discovery and Motion Deadlines

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff Gregory E. Bustamante (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Genaro Salazar, Consuelo Salazar, and Does 1 to 20 for strict liability and general negligence arising out of a dog bite incident that occurred on June 16, 2016.

On July 23, 2019, Defendants Genaro Salazar and Consuelo Salazar (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 7, 2019. Defendants filed a reply on August 12, 2019.

Trial is set for December 12, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request that the Court issue an order continuing the trial date for six months to a date in late June 2020. Defendants also request that all discovery and motion deadlines be continued.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to continue the trial for approximately six months to late June 2020. Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the trial, discovery, and motion cut-off dates because Plaintiff is refusing to provide the names of his health care providers or dates of treatment for his anxiety and depression even though Plaintiff is seeking damages for these conditions and an Informal Discovery Conference is not available until October 24, 2019. Defendants assert that, presuming the Court orders Plaintiff to provide the names of his previous health care providers and dates of treatment regarding his anxiety and depression at the IDC or subsequent hearings on motions to compel responses, Defendants will need to subpoena those medical records, Defendants’ medical expert will then need to review the information, and Defendants will need to decide whether a defense mental examination is needed. Defendants assert this discovery cannot be completed before the current discovery cutoff.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that this motion should be denied because Defendants failed to meet and confer over discovery issues prior to bringing this motion. Plaintiff further argues that he is only claiming damages for pain and suffering under CACI 3905A and that Defendants would have known that had they reached out to ascertain why Plaintiff responded to discovery the way he did.

In reply, Defendants argue that they met and conferred with Plaintiff over the discovery issues. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories contradict Plaintiff’s claim that he is only seeking general damages for pain and suffering.

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for continuing the trial date at this time. The reasons Defendants have presented as good cause for continuing the trial are based on speculation about how discovery disputes will be resolved and about the projected time needed to complete further discovery thereafter. Until there is greater certainty about the what injuries Plaintiff is claiming and the nature and extent of discovery that may be sought to explore those injury claims, there is no good cause to continue the trial.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.