KIMBERLY ANN MILLER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV01372 Hearing Date: May 5, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 15, 208, Plaintiff Kimberly Ann Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles, et al. for damages relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk. Trial is currently set for June 6, 2022.

Defendant Cho Yiu Kwan (“Kwan” or “Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date to a date after March 2, 2023. The motion is unopposed.

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Kwan argues a continuance is necessary because Plaintiff underwent cervical fusion surgery on April 11, 2022, which is an unexpected change in the instant matter, the deposition of the City of Los Angeles’ person most knowledgeable was delayed due to Covid-19, and new trial counsel has been assigned to Defendant. Defendant further contends Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the trial date is not continued because Plaintiff’s damages cannot be fully determined while she is recovering from the surgery. Defendant attests the parties jointly request trial be continued to permit the parties to adequately prepare for trial.

The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance so that the parties can complete discovery and prepare for trial. However, given the age of the case, there will be no further continuances. The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted. The June 6, 2022, trial date is continued to at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The May 23, 2022, Final Status Conference is continued to at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

The court is not available to hear oral argument on this date. If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 5^th day of May 2022

b"

Case Number: 18STCV01372 Hearing Date: July 28, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff, Kimberly Ann Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to compel Defendant, City of Los Angeles’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) deposition. Plaintiff asserts Plaintiff has noticed Defendant’s PK’s deposition multiple times, but Defendant has not produced its PMK, Most recently, Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s PMK’s deposition for November 16, 2020, but Defendant objected to the deposition notice and the deposition did not go forward.

CCP ; 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” CCP ; 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under ;2025.410.

Here, Plaintiff asserts it contacted Defendant after the deposition date to meet and confer and get available dates for the deposition to go forward. Plaintiff asserts Defendant is seemingly waiting for the COVID-19 pandemic to end before producing its PMK, which is unreasonable position to take.

In opposition, Defendant asserts it has now met and conferred with Plaintiff and offered available dates for the deposition. Defendant states it served objections to Plaintiff’s deposition notices because the depositions were unilaterally set, the descriptions provided were unintelligible, and because Street Superintendents were not available to testify at deposition because Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, closed the Bureau of Street Services’ Claim’s Department to have its employees respond and serve on the Emergency Task Force for the Covid-19 state of emergency.

Nonetheless, Defendant does not cite any authority holding that an objection a deposition was unilaterally set is a valid objection, nor does Defendant explain why the notices were unintelligible. The evidence shows Plaintiff served Defendant with a deposition notice, and Defendant failed to produce it PMK.

Therefore, the motion to compel is granted. (CCP ; 2025.450(a).) Defendant City of Los Angeles is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). Pursuant to CCP ; 2025.310, at the election of either Plaintiff or Defendant, the deposition must be completed remotely.

As to the production of documents included in the deposition notice, Plaintiff does not set forth good cause for the production of any documents. (CCP ; 2025.450(b)(1) [“The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”].) Plaintiff does not set forth any specific facts to support the request for production of documents. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to the request for production of documents.

CCP ; 2025.450(g)(1) requires the Court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust. In this case, Defendant provides evidence showing it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff because Defendant’s PMK was not able to be deposed due to the state of emergency caused by COVID-19. Given the state of emergency, the court finds sanctions unwarranted against Defendant or its counsel.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 28^th day of July, 2021