Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc.

Defendants argue there is good cause to continue trial because they are 75 years of age and

34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

therefore need additional accommodations throughout the pre-trial process. However, Defendants represent they are currently available to participate in the case. Given they are currently able to participate in the litigation, it is unclear why the Defendants’ advanced age would necessitate a continuance.

Defendants also argue there is good cause to continue trial in order to complete discovery. The desire to complete discovery is good cause to continue trial when the parties will be unable to obtain essential evidence absent a continuance. The court issued an order re-opening discovery on July 28, 2025. Defendants fail to explain what diligent efforts they have made since that date, why they will be unable to complete discovery despite those diligent efforts, and why alternative remedies, such as extending the discovery deadlines or completing discovery on shortened time would be insufficient.

Defendants also fail to identify with any specificity what essential evidence they will be unable to obtain if trial is not continued to permit further discovery and why they cannot issues subpoenas for documents or witnesses to be produced at trial without the need for prior pre-trial discovery. Defendants indicate they “are only now conducting discovery” and it is unclear whether discovery will be completed in time for trial. (Moving Memo., p. 7:5- 7.) Given that trial was previously continued, diligence required Defendants to commence discovery immediately upon receipt of the Court’s order re-opening discovery.

In opposition, Plaintiff indicates Defendants waited until October 10, 2025 to commence discovery. (Weber Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendants do not explain why they waited more than two months after discovery opened to commence discovery. Defendants’ lack of diligence in pursuing discovery is not good cause for a continuance. This is particularly true where, as noted above, there are alternative remedies available to ensure any essential discovery can be completed.

Defendants also request a continuance to permit the Court to hear pending motions for leave to file an amended cross-complaint and for relief from the failure to timely oppose a motion for summary adjudication, which are currently scheduled to be heard after trial on March 24, 2026 and April 14, 2026. Defendants contend there were procedural delays in pursing these motions due to the Court closing the reservation system for civil motions. Although the Court suspended the reservation system for law and motion matters in Departments 53 and 54 between October 6, 2025 and November 10, 2025 to facilitate the establishment of Civil Home Court Departments, the Court implemented a process to permit parties to file motions with a hearing date to be determined. (Public Notice – Establishment of Civil Home Court Departments; Standing Order SSC-25-7.)

Thus, the temporary suspension did not impact Defendants ability to prepare and file the necessary motions. Further, the Court did not suspend the reservation system for ex parte applications. (Public Notice – Establishment of Civil Home Court Departments; Standing Order SSC-25-7.) Thus, if Defendants believe the motions need to be heard before trial, Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

were able to file ex parte applications to request the Court specially set the hearings on those motions. Defendants’ failure to pursue alternative remedies to obtain earlier hearing dates is not good cause for a continuance.

Defendants have also failed to demonstrate they acted diligently in seeking leave to file an amended cross-complaint. The record indicates Defendants’ Counsel substituted in as counsel of record on April 28, 2025. Counsel represents that the original cross-complaint is “woefully deficient as this Court may see at a glance.” (Moving Memo., p. 7:24-27.) Despite the apparent nature of the deficiencies, the record indicates Defendants did not file a motion for leave to amend until October 24, 2025. Defendants fail to explain why it took almost 6 months to request leave to amend the cross-complaint. Defendants unexplained delay in seeking to amend the cross-complaint is not good cause for a continuance.

In support of the motion, Defendants’ Counsel represents they were recently retained to assist with a complex and lengthy emergency restraining order in Ohio, which was filed on October 31, 2025. The Court is not persuaded that a short delay caused by the need to address emergency issues in other litigation is the type of unanticipated emergency that requires a continuance of trial. Even if the complexity of the issues caused a short delay in Counsel’s ability to complete discovery and file motions in this action, it does not explain why Defendants waited until October to commence discover and to seek leave to amend the cross-complaint, nor is there any evidence explaining why Counsel’s retention for another matter prevents Defendants from adequately preparing for trial as currently scheduled.

Based on the foregoing and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, the Court finds Defendants have failed to show good cause for a continuance. The motion is denied.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337497-CU-OR-GDS: Aisle 3 Concepts, LLC vs. BMS Scolop, Inc. 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

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.