Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California 1/6/2022
2 CHARLES J. ANTONEN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 SAMONA L. TAYLOR (SBN 295256)
Deputy Attorney General
4 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 Fee Exempt Under
San Francisco, CA 94102 Gov. Code § 6103
5 Telephone: (415) 510-3593
Fax: (415) 703-5480
6 E-mail: Samona.Taylor@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
7 California Department of Public Health
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO dba SAN Case No. 19-CIV-06040
13 MATEO MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF,
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA
14 Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S
NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
15 v.
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF A
16 MOTION FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF
17 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and Date: January 27, 2022
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
18
Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Marie S. Weiner
19 Trial Date: January 27, 2022
Action Filed: October 11, 2019
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 NOTICE OF MOTION
2 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2022, in Department
4 2 of the above-entitled Court located at the Hall of Justice Southern Branch, 400 County Center,
5 Redwood City, CA 94063, Defendant California Department of Public Health, via remote
6 appearance, will move for a trial continuance due to the prolonged unavailability of the plaintiff’s
7 witnesses to sit for deposition prior to the present discovery deadlines.
8 This motion is brought on the grounds that the deposition postponement, together with
9 additional delays due to witness unavailability during the holidays, together with Plaintiff’s
10 counsel’s failure to communicate witness availability dates, resulted in deposition scheduling
11 delays up until the eve of trial, which is prejudicial to Defendants’ trial preparation.
12 The instant Motion is based upon this Notice and Motion, the accompanying
13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of the undersigned in support thereof, all
14 pleadings and papers on file with the Court and such oral and documentary evidence as may be
15 presented at the hearing of this Application.
16
17 Dated: January 4, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
18 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
19 CHARLES J. ANTONEN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
20
21
22
SAMONA L. TAYLOR
23 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 INTRODUCTION
3 California Department of Public Health (“CDPH” or “the Department”) brings the instant
4 Motion for a Trial Continuance because the parties are presently rescheduling depositions due to
5 witness unavailability around the winter holidays, which prejudices Defendant’s trial preparation.
6 Defendants first noticed depositions for November 2021, but agreed to continue these based on
7 ongoing settlement discussions. More recently, the parties noticed depositions for dates in
8 December 2021, however, neither parties’ witnesses were available due to the holidays. The
9 parties are in communication and are working on logistics for deposing those witnesses as soon as
10 practicable in January 2022. Despite repeated written requests, plaintiffs have not provided dates
11 that their witnesses are available to sit for deposition. To allow the parties time to complete their
12 their respective depositions, as well as notice any discovery motions in advance of trial,
13 Defendants request that this Court grant the instant application for a trial continuance from
14 January 27, 2022, to May 12, 2022, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. To do
15 otherwise would be unduly prejudicial to defendant.
16 STATEMENT OF FACTS
17 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
18 A. Plaintiff
19 Plaintiff is County of San Mateo dba San Mateo D/P SNF, which is a skilled nursing
20 facility operated by the County of San Mateo.
21 B. Defendant California Department of Public Health
22 Defendant CDPH is a department of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
23 CDPH’s fundamental responsibilities are comprehensive in scope and include infectious disease
24 control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory services, patient safety,
25 emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, family health, health
26 equity and vital records and statistics. CDPH is dedicated to protecting patient safety in hospitals
27 and skilled nursing facilities.
28
3
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 C. Factual Background
2 In this unlimited civil case, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 1428, subdivision
3 (b), plaintiff challenges a Class “AA” citation issued by defendant CDPH with respect to San
4 Mateo Medical Center. CDPH issued a Class “AA” citation (No. 22-3146-0015419-F), with an
5 assessed civil penalty of $100,000 to plaintiff for a violation of 42 C.F.R. part 483.25(d)(1)(2)
6 (failure to prevent accidents; failure to supervise). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit requesting that the
7 Class “AA” citation and monetary penalty be dismissed.
8 D. Status of Discovery
9 To date, CDPH has produced a wide range of materials relevant to the legal issues raised in
10 the Complaint and plaintiff’s discovery requests. CDPH has also supplemented its production
11 after conducting discovery upon third parties. There are no pending motions to compel known to
12 defendant at this time.
13 Defendant has propounded written interrogatories and document demands, to which
14 plaintiffs have responded. In September 2021, defendant noticed depositions of individual
15 witnesses, as follows:
16 Plaintiff’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and a Request for Production for October
17 27, 2021
18 Julieta Adriano for November 11, 2021
19 Riego Mamicpic for November 4, 2021
20 (Declaration of Samona L. Taylor (Taylor Decl.), ¶ 3.) As settlement discussions were ongoing,
21 the parties agreed to reschedule these, as well as the noticed deposition of defendant’s PMQ.
22 (Ibid.) On December 6, 2021, defendant noticed depositions of these same witnesses for
23 December 16 and 17, 2021, and January 5, 2022, respectively, but counsel has since advised that
24 each was unavailable for those dates. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiff noticed a deposition for defendant’s
25 PMQ on December 20, 2021, but she was likewise unavailable. (Ibid.) Defendants have
26 suggested new deposition dates for each of these witnesses in early January. (Ibid.) In contrast,
27 to date, plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any alternative dates despite repeated telephonic and
28 written inquiries for their witnesses’ availability. (Ibid.)
4
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 ARGUMENT
2 I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR A CONTINUANCE
3 The Court may continue trial where, like here, a party makes a showing of good cause.
4 A. Legal Standard
5 “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or
6 stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance, by a noticed motion or an ex
7 parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The
8 party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for
9 the continuance is discovered." (Cal. Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332(b).) “Although
10 continuances are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.
11 The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
12 continuance.” (CRC, rule 3.1332(c).) The court must exercise its discretion with due regard to
13 all interests involved. The denial of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the
14 applicant a fair hearing has been held reversible error. (Palomar Mortg. Co. v. Lister (1963) 212
15 Cal.App. 2d 236; Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal. App. 3d 445.)
16 B. Factors Weigh in Favor of Granting the Continuance
17 A continuance is necessary to afford a fair trial here because settlement negotiations and the
18 noticed deposition witnesses’ unavailability during the holidays have delayed discovery, without
19 which defendants are disadvantaged. This Court should grant the instant request for a trial
20 continuance because of the unforeseen unavailability of the parties’ witnesses, and absent any
21 current understanding about plaintiff’s witness availability, CDPH needs additional time to
22 complete depositions and subsequently prepare for trial. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 7.)
23 Relevant factors considered by the court in ruling on a motion for a continuance may
24 include:
25 1) The proximity of the trial date;
2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial
26 due to any party;
27 3) The length of the continuance requested;
28
5
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
motion or application for a continuance;
2
5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
3
6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
4 whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
5 7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending
trials;
6
8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
7
9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
8 10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the
9 matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or
10
application.
11
(CRC, rule 3.1332 (d).)
12
The present trial date is January 27, 2021. Neither party has previously requested any trial
13
continuance, nor has there been any previous trial delay. Defendants request a relatively short
14
continuance of just over three months. Without a continuance, defendants will experience
15
prejudicial effect. Discovery deadlines are fast approaching but plaintiff’s counsel has not yet
16
made witnesses available for deposition nor shared their potential availability, despite repeated
17
requests. (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 3-8.) Whether or not plaintiffs seek to disadvantage defendants at trial
18
or as a means to garner negotiating leverage by first agreeing to reschedule the depositions while
19
the parties negotiate potential settlement, then to postpone depositions beyond the discovery
20
deadline, and then not join in this application for a continuance, such actions suggest
21
gamesmanship which should not be rewarded. CDPH is negotiating in good faith and postponed
22
the noticed November depositions to December 2021 in reliance that depositions would proceed
23
in time for trial.
24
The practical impact of disallowing a trial continuance would be to curtail defendant’s
25
outstanding discovery requests and essentially neuter defendant’s trial preparation. This would be
26
highly prejudicial. In contrast, a short continuance would afford both parties time to complete
27
their respective depositions and discovery, with no prejudicial impact to either party. Moreover,
28
6
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
1 CDPH makes the instant request while it is experiencing an unexpected intervening event due to
2 the rapid spread of COVID-19, including a depletion of resources while the office focuses on the
3 public health crisis, the impact of which is felt across departments and by their counsel.
4 On balance, the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid a short delay.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, CDPH requests that this Court grant the instant request for a
7 four month trial continuance from January 27, 2022, to Thursday, May 12, 2022, or as soon
8 thereafter that is convenient for the Court.
9
10 Dated: January 4, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
11 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
12 CHARLES J. ANTONEN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
13
14
15
SAMONA L. TAYLOR
16 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SF2019300506
26 43026786.docx
27
28
7
DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
Case Name: San Mateo Medical Center D/P SNF v. CDPH
No.: 19-CIV-06040
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter.
On January 4, 2022, I served the attached
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S NOTICE AND
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION
FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE
DECLARATION OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAMONA L. TAYLOR IN
SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH’S MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
DATES
by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail, addressed as follows:
Jonathon E. Cohn, email: jcohn@polsinelli.com
Sara Avakian, email: savakian@polsinelli.com
Ellie Tucker, email: etucker@polsinelli.com
Polsinelli LLP - Los Angeles
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 4,
2022, at San Francisco, California.
Sandy Shum
Declarant Signature
SF2019300570
Preview
1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 1/6/2022 2 CHARLES J. ANTONEN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 SAMONA L. TAYLOR (SBN 295256) Deputy Attorney General 4 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 Fee Exempt Under San Francisco, CA 94102 Gov. Code § 6103 5 Telephone: (415) 510-3593 Fax: (415) 703-5480 6 E-mail: Samona.Taylor@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant 7 California Department of Public Health 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO dba SAN Case No. 19-CIV-06040 13 MATEO MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF, DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA 14 Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 15 v. AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF A 16 MOTION FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF 17 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and Date: January 27, 2022 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Marie S. Weiner 19 Trial Date: January 27, 2022 Action Filed: October 11, 2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2022, in Department 4 2 of the above-entitled Court located at the Hall of Justice Southern Branch, 400 County Center, 5 Redwood City, CA 94063, Defendant California Department of Public Health, via remote 6 appearance, will move for a trial continuance due to the prolonged unavailability of the plaintiff’s 7 witnesses to sit for deposition prior to the present discovery deadlines. 8 This motion is brought on the grounds that the deposition postponement, together with 9 additional delays due to witness unavailability during the holidays, together with Plaintiff’s 10 counsel’s failure to communicate witness availability dates, resulted in deposition scheduling 11 delays up until the eve of trial, which is prejudicial to Defendants’ trial preparation. 12 The instant Motion is based upon this Notice and Motion, the accompanying 13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of the undersigned in support thereof, all 14 pleadings and papers on file with the Court and such oral and documentary evidence as may be 15 presented at the hearing of this Application. 16 17 Dated: January 4, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 18 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 19 CHARLES J. ANTONEN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 20 21 22 SAMONA L. TAYLOR 23 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 INTRODUCTION 3 California Department of Public Health (“CDPH” or “the Department”) brings the instant 4 Motion for a Trial Continuance because the parties are presently rescheduling depositions due to 5 witness unavailability around the winter holidays, which prejudices Defendant’s trial preparation. 6 Defendants first noticed depositions for November 2021, but agreed to continue these based on 7 ongoing settlement discussions. More recently, the parties noticed depositions for dates in 8 December 2021, however, neither parties’ witnesses were available due to the holidays. The 9 parties are in communication and are working on logistics for deposing those witnesses as soon as 10 practicable in January 2022. Despite repeated written requests, plaintiffs have not provided dates 11 that their witnesses are available to sit for deposition. To allow the parties time to complete their 12 their respective depositions, as well as notice any discovery motions in advance of trial, 13 Defendants request that this Court grant the instant application for a trial continuance from 14 January 27, 2022, to May 12, 2022, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. To do 15 otherwise would be unduly prejudicial to defendant. 16 STATEMENT OF FACTS 17 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 A. Plaintiff 19 Plaintiff is County of San Mateo dba San Mateo D/P SNF, which is a skilled nursing 20 facility operated by the County of San Mateo. 21 B. Defendant California Department of Public Health 22 Defendant CDPH is a department of the California Health and Human Services Agency. 23 CDPH’s fundamental responsibilities are comprehensive in scope and include infectious disease 24 control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory services, patient safety, 25 emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, family health, health 26 equity and vital records and statistics. CDPH is dedicated to protecting patient safety in hospitals 27 and skilled nursing facilities. 28 3 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 C. Factual Background 2 In this unlimited civil case, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 1428, subdivision 3 (b), plaintiff challenges a Class “AA” citation issued by defendant CDPH with respect to San 4 Mateo Medical Center. CDPH issued a Class “AA” citation (No. 22-3146-0015419-F), with an 5 assessed civil penalty of $100,000 to plaintiff for a violation of 42 C.F.R. part 483.25(d)(1)(2) 6 (failure to prevent accidents; failure to supervise). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit requesting that the 7 Class “AA” citation and monetary penalty be dismissed. 8 D. Status of Discovery 9 To date, CDPH has produced a wide range of materials relevant to the legal issues raised in 10 the Complaint and plaintiff’s discovery requests. CDPH has also supplemented its production 11 after conducting discovery upon third parties. There are no pending motions to compel known to 12 defendant at this time. 13 Defendant has propounded written interrogatories and document demands, to which 14 plaintiffs have responded. In September 2021, defendant noticed depositions of individual 15 witnesses, as follows: 16 Plaintiff’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and a Request for Production for October 17 27, 2021 18 Julieta Adriano for November 11, 2021 19 Riego Mamicpic for November 4, 2021 20 (Declaration of Samona L. Taylor (Taylor Decl.), ¶ 3.) As settlement discussions were ongoing, 21 the parties agreed to reschedule these, as well as the noticed deposition of defendant’s PMQ. 22 (Ibid.) On December 6, 2021, defendant noticed depositions of these same witnesses for 23 December 16 and 17, 2021, and January 5, 2022, respectively, but counsel has since advised that 24 each was unavailable for those dates. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiff noticed a deposition for defendant’s 25 PMQ on December 20, 2021, but she was likewise unavailable. (Ibid.) Defendants have 26 suggested new deposition dates for each of these witnesses in early January. (Ibid.) In contrast, 27 to date, plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any alternative dates despite repeated telephonic and 28 written inquiries for their witnesses’ availability. (Ibid.) 4 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 ARGUMENT 2 I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR A CONTINUANCE 3 The Court may continue trial where, like here, a party makes a showing of good cause. 4 A. Legal Standard 5 “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or 6 stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance, by a noticed motion or an ex 7 parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The 8 party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for 9 the continuance is discovered." (Cal. Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332(b).) “Although 10 continuances are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. 11 The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the 12 continuance.” (CRC, rule 3.1332(c).) The court must exercise its discretion with due regard to 13 all interests involved. The denial of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the 14 applicant a fair hearing has been held reversible error. (Palomar Mortg. Co. v. Lister (1963) 212 15 Cal.App. 2d 236; Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal. App. 3d 445.) 16 B. Factors Weigh in Favor of Granting the Continuance 17 A continuance is necessary to afford a fair trial here because settlement negotiations and the 18 noticed deposition witnesses’ unavailability during the holidays have delayed discovery, without 19 which defendants are disadvantaged. This Court should grant the instant request for a trial 20 continuance because of the unforeseen unavailability of the parties’ witnesses, and absent any 21 current understanding about plaintiff’s witness availability, CDPH needs additional time to 22 complete depositions and subsequently prepare for trial. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 7.) 23 Relevant factors considered by the court in ruling on a motion for a continuance may 24 include: 25 1) The proximity of the trial date; 2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial 26 due to any party; 27 3) The length of the continuance requested; 28 5 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 2 5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 3 6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and 4 whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 5 7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 6 8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 7 9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 8 10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the 9 matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or 10 application. 11 (CRC, rule 3.1332 (d).) 12 The present trial date is January 27, 2021. Neither party has previously requested any trial 13 continuance, nor has there been any previous trial delay. Defendants request a relatively short 14 continuance of just over three months. Without a continuance, defendants will experience 15 prejudicial effect. Discovery deadlines are fast approaching but plaintiff’s counsel has not yet 16 made witnesses available for deposition nor shared their potential availability, despite repeated 17 requests. (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 3-8.) Whether or not plaintiffs seek to disadvantage defendants at trial 18 or as a means to garner negotiating leverage by first agreeing to reschedule the depositions while 19 the parties negotiate potential settlement, then to postpone depositions beyond the discovery 20 deadline, and then not join in this application for a continuance, such actions suggest 21 gamesmanship which should not be rewarded. CDPH is negotiating in good faith and postponed 22 the noticed November depositions to December 2021 in reliance that depositions would proceed 23 in time for trial. 24 The practical impact of disallowing a trial continuance would be to curtail defendant’s 25 outstanding discovery requests and essentially neuter defendant’s trial preparation. This would be 26 highly prejudicial. In contrast, a short continuance would afford both parties time to complete 27 their respective depositions and discovery, with no prejudicial impact to either party. Moreover, 28 6 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) 1 CDPH makes the instant request while it is experiencing an unexpected intervening event due to 2 the rapid spread of COVID-19, including a depletion of resources while the office focuses on the 3 public health crisis, the impact of which is felt across departments and by their counsel. 4 On balance, the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid a short delay. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, CDPH requests that this Court grant the instant request for a 7 four month trial continuance from January 27, 2022, to Thursday, May 12, 2022, or as soon 8 thereafter that is convenient for the Court. 9 10 Dated: January 4, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 11 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 12 CHARLES J. ANTONEN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 13 14 15 SAMONA L. TAYLOR 16 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SF2019300506 26 43026786.docx 27 28 7 DEFENDANT CDPH’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE (CASE NO. 19-CIV-06040) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL Case Name: San Mateo Medical Center D/P SNF v. CDPH No.: 19-CIV-06040 I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. On January 4, 2022, I served the attached DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE DECLARATION OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAMONA L. TAYLOR IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATES by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail, addressed as follows: Jonathon E. Cohn, email: jcohn@polsinelli.com Sara Avakian, email: savakian@polsinelli.com Ellie Tucker, email: etucker@polsinelli.com Polsinelli LLP - Los Angeles 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 4, 2022, at San Francisco, California. Sandy Shum Declarant Signature SF2019300570