DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV008707: DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on 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 Defendant Aly Elsayed (“Defendant”) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 10, 2026. Defendant requests a continuance until August 2026 or later. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Discussion

“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].)

MSJ

Defendant argues a continuance is necessary to permit Defendant’s motion for summary

24CV008707: DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

judgment to be heard. On October 24, 2025, Defendant attempted to file a motion for summary judgment, which gave notice of a hearing on January 8, 2026. Although the Defendant had failed to reserve a hearing on January 8, 2026, the clerk inadvertently accepted the motion for filing. After the error was discovered, Defendant filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear the motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied. Defendant therefore requests a continuance so it may re-file its motion for summary judgment with a timely hearing date.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues trial should not be continued because Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was not timely filed on October 24, 2025. A motion for summary judgment must be filed and served at least 81 days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2).) Thus, to be heard on January 8, 2026 as noticed, Defendant was required to file and personally serve the motion on or before October 19, 2025. As Defendant did not attempt to file the motion until October 24, 2025, even if Defendant had properly reserved a hearing date the motion the Court could not have considered the motion on its merits due to defective notice. Under these circumstances, Defendant’s failure to timely file a motion for summary judgment does not constitute good cause for a continuance.

Expert

Defendant also argues there is good cause for a continuance because Defendant wishes to designate a supplemental psychologist expert to rebut Plaintiff’s expert but has been unable to find an expert with availability for the current trial date. Defendant submits evidence that they contacted four potential experts, none of whom have availability.

In opposition, Defendant failed to exercise diligence in designating an expert because they should have known a psychiatric expert would be needed and should therefore have not waited until after Plaintiff’s expert disclosure to attempt to find an expert.

The code permits parties to designate supplemental experts in response to an adverse parties’ designation of experts. As experts are not disclosed until shortly before trial, it follows a party will not commence a search for a supplemental expert until shortly before trial. However, the Court agrees that parties must exercise diligence in completing discovery and cannot unreasonably delay in retaining experts that are reasonably likely to be necessary in hopes they can delay trial by requesting a continuance to retain a supplemental expert.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008707: DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

The Court therefore finds this factor weighs in favor of a continuance.

Written Discovery

Defendant argues Plaintiff recently provided evasive answers to requests for admission and that additional time is needed to compel further responses. In opposition, Plaintiff contends her discovery responses are compliant and that Defendant failed to exercise diligence by waiting until the last minute to propound discovery.

As noted above, parties must exercise diligence in completing discovery. This requirement necessitates parties to consider anticipate the possibility of discovery disputes and to propound discovery sufficiently in advance of the deadlines to permit adequate time to meet and confer and to file any necessary discovery motions. Significantly, Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff delayed in providing discovery responses. Thus, it appears the timing of Plaintiff’s responses is the direct result of Defendant’s delay in waiting to propound discovery. Defendant’s delay in completing discovery is not good cause for a continuance.

Financial Discovery

Third, Defendant argues Plaintiff filed a motion for financial discovery shortly before trial that supports the need for a continuance. In opposition, Plaintiff represents a “Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion for Financial Discovery” was filed on January 23, 2026. At this time, no such document appears in the record. However, the Court will not grant a continuance to permit Plaintiff additional time to complete discovery when Plaintiff expressly opposes a continuance.

The Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s pending motion for financial discovery does not support a continuance. In doing so, the Court makes no finding as to the timeliness or merits of the motion.

Motion to Quash

Finally, Defendant argues a continuance is necessary because Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoenas for records that is scheduled to be heard on July 6, 2026.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to exercise diligence in pursuing this discovery. Plaintiff notes Defendant previously issued identical subpoenas in August 2025 but later agreed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008707: DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

to withdraw those subpoenas and to narrow their scope. Rather than promptly issuing more narrowly-tailored subpoenas, Plaintiff argues Defendant then chose to issue identical subpoenas shortly before trial rather than issuing more narrowly-tailored subpoenas.

The Court expresses concern that Defendant chose to wait until shortly before trial before issuing subpoenas for necessary records. Notably, motions to compel discovery place the onus on the moving party to obtain a timely hearing date. Motions to quash subpoenas, however, permit the moving party to delay discovery and therefore provide no incentive for the moving party to seek a timely hearing. Here, there is no dispute that Defendant’s subpoenas were timely and that Defendant would have been able to obtain the records but for Plaintiff’s motion to quash.

Moreover, the Court notes parties may subpoena records to be produced at trial without first obtaining discovery of those records. Here, if Defendant were to subpoena the records for trial, Plaintiff would likely seek to quash production of the records. Thus, it is apparent that the dispute regarding the records must be resolved. This factor therefore weighs in favor of a continuance.

Conclusion

The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the foregoing and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. The February 10, 2026 trial date is VACATED.

Given the availability of the experts contacted by Defendant and as Plaintiff’s motion to quash is not scheduled until July 6, 2026, a lengthy continuance is necessary. The Court will therefore refer this action to the trial setting process.

This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov, or by recorded message at 916-874-6098. Plaintiff's counsel must notify the court of the selection of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/trial-setting.aspx. If the parties have not agreed on dates before the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008707: DOE vs ALY ELSAYED DENTAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

The continuance does not operate to reopen discovery that has already closed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) However, the Court finds good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purposes of Defendant’s anticipated supplemental expert and the pending subpoenas for records. All other trial related deadlines, other than discovery, shall be based on the new trial date.

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 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 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.