Galindo vs. Sosoatu

granted. Id. “[T]he interests at stake are too high to sanction the denial of [such] a continuance [request] without good reason.” Frazee v. Seely (Fourth Dist. Div. 3 2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634.) These interests include the importance of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies. Braganza, 67 Cal.App.5th at 152 (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel has identified specific discovery that Plaintiff seeks in order to make its case but which it has been deprived of. [See Lewis Decl. (ROA #129).] Counsel points to specific written discovery for which it is seeking further responses from Defendant. [Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 3-12 and Exs. 3-6.] He also describes being stymied in his attempt to take the depositions of Fallgatter and Belli, the Board member who signed the resolution approving the settlement negotiated by Plaintiff (among other things). [Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 13-26.]

Where a continuance is not mandatory under section 437(h), the court must nevertheless determine whether the party requesting the continuance has established good cause for a continuance. Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716. The court’s discretion is to be exercised liberally, considering the following factors: length of time the case has been pending, time the requesting party had to oppose the motion, the proximity to the trial date, whether the continuance motion could have been made earlier, whether there were prior continuances for the same purpose.

Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, § 10:208 -208.1 and cases cited there. See also Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765 (reversing summary judgment and order denying request for continuance stipulated to by moving party because, while opposing party did not meet 437c(h) requirements he showed good cause despite not being fully diligent).

To the extent the information sought by Plaintiff’s counsel is relevant, he has made the required showing for a continuance under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). Defendant argues that the information sought by Plaintiff’s counsel is not relevant. Rather than rejecting evidence sight unseen, however, the court is inclined to allow the discovery requested and judge the relevance of the evidence when it is before the court.