Unknown v. DOE Defendants

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) August 19, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Plaintiff may serve the discovery aimed at identifying the identities of the DOE defendants at any time. The court is not 100% certain that there is exigency in the sense that this could not have been done by noticed motion. But that said, in this case the question arises: notice to whom? Given that there is no one to whom notice can be given anyway, it makes little sense to wait the 16 days. And on the merits of the motion, good cause is shown. The 20 day waiting period will never run because plaintiff cannot--even with reasonable diligence--discovery the defendant's identity without this discovery, and therefore will never be able to serve defendants. The court will sign the proposed order.

Case Number: BC664654 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: I

The application is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks additional time to present the case. The court is not inclined to grant it at this time. The court will, of course, consider any accommodations needed--as it has in the past. But at this point, it is premature.

At the last trial, the court eventually had to call a mistrial due to the time being taken. The court believes that the witness lists remain too long and that efficient examinations suggest that the time can be cut back to the court's guidelines. The court is willing to address this in greater detail at the FSC, and the court will certainly at that time increase the time constraints if it is necessary to do so. However, the request that is being made now would wind up with something akin to 30 hours per side, which is 60 hours.

Given that the court can only have 3 days of trial per week given plaintiff's request, and given that a trial day is 3.5 hours, this is becoming an 18 day trial--or about 6 weeks. If it is really going to be that long, the court will need to transfer it to Department 1. This court will not cand cannot devote that much time to a trial because it is not fair to the other litigants.

Because this court has already devoted quite a lot of time to this case, the court would prefer to keep it if the court can do so. The court believes it is possible, but the court will not promote efficiency over due process. That can be better addressed at the FSC. | Home -->)" -->