Motion to continue trial; Motion to reopen discovery
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/18/2025 Long Cause Trial Assignment /Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Defendants Ahmad Esmati and Mohammed Yusuf Esmati (Defendants) to continue trial and reopen discovery is ruled on as follows. Appearances are required.
This is a breach of contract action arising from IT contracts with the government of Afghanistan. (See Complaint.) Trial is scheduled on November 18, 2025.
Defendants have been representing themselves in pro per. At the mandatory settlement conference on October 6, 2025, Defendants learned they lack the ability to represent themselves and decided to retain counsel. Defendants now request a continuance so that newly-retained counsel may complete discovery and adequately prepare for trial. Newly-retained counsel represents trial in this action will require producing witness testimony and documentary evidence located in Afghanistan, navigating through issues regarding Afghanistans government instability, and deciphering complex questions regarding Afghanistan law. (Newdorf Decl., ¶¶ 11-15.)
Defendants Counsel also has conflicts with hearings and discovery obligations in other pending litigation, which impede Counsels ability to prepare for trial. (Newdorf Decl., ¶ 16.) Defendants request a continuance until June 1, 2026 so that they may complete discovery and provide Counsel an opportunity to prepare for trial.
Plaintiff Netlinks, Inc. (Plaintiff) opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues Defendants unreasonably delayed in retaining counsel, did not diligently pursue discovery, and that there is no good cause for a continuance or to reopen discovery.
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/18/2025 Long Cause Trial Assignment /Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.) The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that . . . the necessity for the continuance should have 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 granting of a continuance. (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)
The Court finds there is good cause for a continuance due to the substitution of counsel in the interests of justice, the need for additional time to ensure essential evidence located in a foreign country can be presented at trial, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.
Defendants have submitted evidence that this is a complex contract and fraud case and that representation is necessary to ensure they can adequately present their defenses on the merits. As Defendants note, the Court granted a fee waiver in this case, which supports the inference the Defendants failure to retain counsel earlier was due in part to their lack of financial resources. This is the first request for a continuance and Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a short delay would cause prejudice.
The request to reopen discovery is not properly before the Court and is denied, without prejudice to reassertion in the Civil Home Court Department. A continuance does not operate to reopen discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(b).) Thus, absent a stipulation, a noticed motion is necessary to reopen discovery. Discovery motions are not among the enumerated motions heard in this department. (Local Rule, 1.05(B).) Moreover, a motion to reopen discovery must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2024.050.) Defendants Counsel represents he met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding a potential stipulation to continue trial. (Newford Decl., ¶ 2.) However, there is no evidence that the meet and confer discussion included a request to reopen discovery. (Ibid.) Thus, Defendants have failed to show sufficient meet and confer to support a request to reopen discovery. As the motion to reopen discovery was filed in the wrong department and is not supported by an adequate meet and confer declaration, it is not properly before the Court at this time.
The motion to continue trial is granted. The November 18, 2025 trial date is VACATED. Appearances are required to select a new trial date. The motion to reopen discovery is denied, without prejudice to reassertion in the Civil Home Court Department assigned to this action.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/18/2025 Long Cause Trial Assignment /Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. 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 Courts 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 than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.