POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al.

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. 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 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.

Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Avtar Singh Sandhar’s (“Defendant”) motion to continue trial and related dates is DENIED as follows.

This is a personal injury case arising out of an August 3, 2021 motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 24 2023. Trial was originally scheduled for November 24, 2025.

Plaintiff identified BrainCare Solutions as a medical provider for the first time in amended discovery responses on June 27, 2025, and first identified the treatment she received as “TBI” (traumatic brain injury) in September 19, 2025.

Defendant moved ex parte (with a supporting stipulation) for a trial continuance on September

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

19, 2025, the day Defendant received Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery response identifying the TBI-related treatment at BrainCare Solutions. The application was granted on September 22, 2025, and trial was rescheduled for September 28, 2026, approximately a year later.

Defendant now moves for an additional trial continuance until March 2, 2027, on the grounds that “[c]ritical defense discovery cannot be completed before the current trial date, the inability to complete that discovery is substantially attributable to Plaintiff’s repeated obstruction, and Defendant will be severely prejudiced if required to proceed to trial without completing it.” (Mot. 2:1-5.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion, essentially rejoining that Defendant’s situation is of his own making because Defendant did not begin seeking the subject discovery until late April of 2026, seven months after Plaintiff’s TBI treatment was disclosed and the trial date was continued.

The Court agrees.

“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.)

“Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: [¶] (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c) [emphasis added].) “In ruling on a motion . . . for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination[,]” which may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown good cause for the continuance. Although Defendant contends critical defense discovery cannot be completed before the current trial date, he has not shown that he has been diligent in seeking the subject discovery. As stated above, the current trial date was set in September of 2025, and Defendant did not initiate his efforts to obtain any of the discovery that is at issue in this motion (including expert discovery concerning Plaintiff’s claimed traumatic brain injury) until April 2026, seven months later.

Moreover, Defendant contends that the delays in discovery are due to Plaintiff’s obstruction, but the record reflects otherwise. For example, Defendant first served Kaiser with a subpoena for Plaintiff’s mental health records on April 22, 2026. Similarly, Defendant did not serve notices for the additional IMEs it seeks until April 23, 2026 and April 28, 2026. And Defendant’s motions concerning that discovery were denied by the Civil Home Court department in full or in part.

Moreover, alternative remedies are available to complete the remaining discovery before trial commences, such as extending the discovery deadlines or conducting discovery on shortened time.

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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 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. ***