Case Number: BC659988 Hearing Date: June 07, 2018 Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Del Amo Hospital, Inc.

OPPOSITION: None

Background: Plaintiff Melody Callan sues defendant Del Amo Hospital, Inc. for damages based on allegations that employees of defendant released confidential medical information to plaintiff’s former supervisor, essentially requiring her to seek employment elsewhere.

On May 2, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) invasion of right to privacy, (2) violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligence.

On May 4, 2018, defendant filed this unopposed motion to continue trial.

Standard: Continuances of trial dates are generally disfavored, unless the necessity for the continuance resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by the granting of a continuance. Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250. Accordingly, continuances may be granted on an affirmative showing of good cause, under the standards recommended in CRC, rule 3.1332(c). CRC, rule 3.1332(c); Lazarus, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at 1249-1250 (decided under former rule 375). Those standards establish that the following matters, under normal circumstances, should be considered by the court to be good cause for granting the continuance of a trial date: (1) death; (2) illness; (3) unavailability of attorney or witness; (4) substitution of attorney; (5) addition of a new party; (6) significant change in status of case. CRC, rule 3.1332(c).

A court should also consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including the proximity of trial, previous continuances, the length of the continuance sought, alternatives, prejudice to parties or witnesses, preferential trial setting, the court’s calendar, trial counsels’ calendars, stipulations to continuances, the interests of justice, and any other relevant facts or circumstances. CRC, rule 3.1332(d). Another consideration is that continuances must be sought promptly once their grounds have been ascertained. CRC, rule 3.1332(b).

Nevertheless, the factors that influence the granting or denying of a continuance in any particular case are so varied that the trial judge must necessarily exercise a broad discretion. Arnett v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 332, 343.

The governing factors are set forth in their entirety below. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c), circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only 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.

Under subdivision (d), other factors to be considered are:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to 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.

Analysis: Defendant moves to continue trial approximately six months (specifically, to February 21, 2019) to allow defendant sufficient time to obtain authorizations for the release of mental health records and provide them to expert witnesses. Defendant states that plaintiff previously failed to identify a number of health care providers with whom she has obtained mental health treatment. Thus, defendant has established an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence from plaintiff despite diligent efforts. See CRC, rule 3.1332(c)(6).

Defendant states that both parties have stipulated to a continuance. See CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(9). From this, the Court infers that there will be little prejudice to the parties or any witnesses as a result of the continuance. See CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(5). As defendant notes, such prejudice would be outweighed by the fact that even with the requested continuance, trial will commence within two years of the filing of the complaint. See CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(10). Finally, trial has not previously been continued. See CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(2).

The Court is therefore inclined to grant a continuance.

Conclusion: The motion is GRANTED.

The trial date is CONTINUED to March 5, 2019 (9:30 a.m.); the final status conference to February 21 and the post mediation status conference (both at 8:30 a.m.) for January 17, 2019.

Defendant to give notice.