Daily Blast July 6, 2018

Today, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside) published its opinion in Padda v. Superior Court (July 6, 2018, E070522) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, holding that “[g]enerally, a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a request for continuance of trial due to the absence of a properly called and subpoenaed witness.” (Slip opn., p. 5.)

The defendants designated an expert witness who became ill. The plaintiffs had not yet deposed the expert. His deposition was set the week prior to trial—the week in which his condition was discovered—so there was no deposition testimony that could have been used at trial in place of his live testimony. (Slip opn., p. 3.) The trial court denied the defendants’ ex parte application for a trial continuance. The litigation had proceeded for about four years, with at least four trial continuances over the past year. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate. The defendants argued that their defense and cross-complaint would be rendered ineffective absent the expert’s testimony and that it would be extremely difficult to find a replacement expert under the circumstances. The Court of Appeal “recognize[d] the superior court’s assessment that it may not be that difficult to find a replacement, and its inherent power to manage its docket. [Citation.] However, the eve of trial impact on [the defendants’] ability to present their case is an untenable burden and a distraction during a high-tempo proceeding.” (Slip opn., p. 6.) Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ request for a continuance. (Id. at p. 7.)

This case will be helpful to cite when seeking trial continuances, particularly due to health issues.