Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs

requesting, if the Court grants the motion, that the Court condition the order on a waiver of the deadline to commence trial rather than an extension of the deadline. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration indicates the evidence supporting the request for waiver of the deadline is confidential and privileged and requests to present this information in camera. The request to present evidence in-camera is denied. Plaintiff did not file a memorandum providing any authority indicating a party may rely on privileged information as evidence by presenting the information in camera without waiving the privilege or argument explaining why Plaintiff should be permitted to do so in this case.

Even if the Court could consider such evidence, Plaintiff was required to present it in accordance with the procedures for filing documents under seal. Plaintiff did not file a motion to seal and did not lodge any evidence under seal.

Upon review of the collective papers, the Court finds good cause for a continuance. However, the only discovery County Defendant’s identify that needs to be completed is the review of documents already in County Defendant’s possession, the deposition of Plaintiff, and the deposition of Plaintiff’s former treating physician. Given the limited amount of discovery remaining, the Court is not persuaded that a continuance beyond the deadline to commence trial is necessary or appropriate. Further, the Court notes County Defendant did not submit an actual stipulation to extend the deadline to commence trial beyond the current deadline. County Defendant’s Counsel’s representation that other defendants not represented by said Counsel would be willing to stipulate to extend the deadline to commence trial is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 583.330.

Finally, the Court notes the parties failed to comply with Local Rule 2.11, which requires all parties to provide their availability for trial when a motion to continue trial is pending, regardless of whether the motion is opposed. As a result, the Court is unable to select a date for trial that will not result in a potential conflict. Therefore, the Court will instead refer this matter to the trial setting process.

The motion is granted. The August 15, 1015 mandatory settlement conference and September 15, 2025 trial dates are VACATED.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285924-CU-CR-GDS: Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs 04/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Shorten Time in Department 47

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.

To the extend discovery is closed, the continuance does not operate to reopen discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) All other statutory deadlines, including expert and non-expert discovery deadlines that remain open as of the date of the hearing shall be governed by 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.