Susan L. Lussier vs. Cheryl Dorman

34-2023-00336302-CU-FR-GDS: Susan L Lussier vs. Cheryl Dorman 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Defendant argues there is good cause for a continuance because her prior counsel failed to complete discovery and current limited scope counsel needs additional time to complete essential discovery. However, the only discovery Defendant identifies that needs to be completed is the deposition of Plaintiff.

Defendant fails to explain why there is insufficient time to complete a single deposition before the current trial date. Defendant also fails to explain what essential evidence Defendant will be unable to produce at trial if the deposition is not completed. Notably, Defendant is free to compel Plaintiff to appear at trial without the need for completing a deposition. While Defendant may prefer to depose Plaintiff before trial, Defendant has failed to show that the inability to do so would cause prejudice.

Moreover, upon review of the collective evidence, Defendant’s failure to depose Plaintiff was due to her own neglect. Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff to proceed on May 1, 2026. (Elder Decl., ¶ 6.) As Plaintiff explains in opposition, it was Defendant, not Plaintiff, who cancelled the deposition on April 30, 2026. (Pottier Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant explains the deposition did not move forward because when Defendant electronically served the deposition notice, Defendant received a response indicating Plaintiff’s counsel was “out of office” instead of a response confirming Plaintiff would appear as noticed.

There is no statute that required Plaintiff to respond to the deposition notice. Absent a timely objection, the service of the deposition notice was sufficient to compel Plaintiff’s attendance. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff objected to the deposition or otherwise indicated she would not appear as noticed. If Defendant had any concern Plaintiff would not appear, Defendant was free to call or send a follow-up email to confirm the appearance. There is no evidence that Defendant made any effort to do so before cancelling the deposition on April 30, 2026. Under these circumstances, the Court finds the delay in deposing Plaintiff is not good cause for a continuance.

Moreover, a continuance of trial does not operate to re-open discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) Absent a stipulation, a noticed motion is required to re-open discovery. Motions to re-open discovery are not among the enumerated motions heard in this department. (Local Rule, 1.05.) Further, such motions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(a).) Defendant’s notice of motion does not request an order re-opening discovery, the supporting declarations do not satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements for such a motion, and there is no pending motion to re-open discovery in the Civil Home Court. Thus, even if the Court were to grant a continuance, it would not re-open discovery for purposes of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336302-CU-FR-GDS: Susan L Lussier vs. Cheryl Dorman 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Plaintiff’s deposition.

Defendant also argues there is good cause to continue trial so that a motion for summary judgment may be heard on September 9, 2026. However, there is no hearing scheduled for that date, the record indicates Defendant has not filed a motion for summary judgment at this time, and the deadline to file and serve a motion for summary judgment in compliance with the statutory notice requirements has passed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance. The motion is therefore denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336302-CU-FR-GDS: Susan L Lussier vs. Cheryl Dorman 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.