55 Cal.App.5th 463
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Reales Investment contracted with TJ&V (owned by Johnson) to build a residence; Grove Lumber supplied lumber, was unpaid, recorded a mechanic’s lien and sued TJ&V, Reales, and Reales’s owners. Reales later filed a cross-complaint against TJ&V/Johnson.
- Reales’s counsel moved to withdraw in October 2018; withdrawal was granted in mid-November and the trial was continued to January 2019.
- Reales failed to participate in Riverside County Local Rule 3401 pretrial procedures: it did not timely exchange witness/exhibit lists, did not produce requested discovery, and deponents failed to appear for repeated depositions.
- Grove filed a motion in limine seeking exclusion of Reales’s witnesses and documents for discovery noncompliance; Reales did not oppose and did not supply required materials.
- On the first day of trial Reales substituted new counsel and made an oral, unsupported request for a continuance; the court denied the request and, based on Rule 3401 noncompliance and discovery history, excluded any evidence or witnesses Reales had not disclosed.
- The court entered nonsuit in favor of Johnson; Reales appealed, challenging the denial of the continuance and the exclusionary sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Reales’s oral request for a continuance on the first day of trial | Reales: denial was improper because new counsel had just appeared and needed time to prepare | Johnson: request was untimely, oral only, lacked declaration or written motion, and opposing parties were ready | Court: Denial was not an abuse — continuances disfavored; oral, unsupported, same‑day requests violate rule 3.1332 and Doria supports denial |
| Whether excluding all evidence/witnesses not disclosed under Local Rule 3401 was an abuse of discretion | Reales: exclusionary order unfairly prevented it from presenting its case and violated due process; failures excusable because it lacked counsel for part of the pretrial period | Johnson: Reales repeatedly failed to respond to discovery, produce documents, or attend depositions; exclusion was a proportionate sanction to prevent unfair surprise | Court: Sanction was not an abuse — Rule 3401 permits evidentiary sanctions; long history of discovery noncompliance justified preclusion to ensure fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- County of San Bernardino v. Doria Mining & Engineering Corp., 72 Cal.App.3d 776 (1977) (upheld denial of oral continuance made on morning of trial)
- Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 (2012) (standard of review for continuance denial; trial court discretion)
- Forthmann v. Boyer, 97 Cal.App.4th 977 (2002) (trial court’s continuance decisions are committed to its discretion)
- Thoren v. Johnston & Washer, 29 Cal.App.3d 270 (1972) (precluding testimony where party willfully failed to identify witness prevents unfair surprise)
- Deeter v. Angus, 179 Cal.App.3d 241 (1986) (withholding evidence in discovery may justify exclusion)
- Crumpton v. Dickstein, 82 Cal.App.3d 166 (1978) (even non‑willful failure to disclose experts can justify exclusion to protect preparation rights)
- Peat, Marwick, Mitchel & Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.3d 272 (1988) (trial courts may preclude evidence to curb abuses and ensure fair process)
- Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 124 Cal.App.4th 1315 (2004) (preclusion for repeated discovery failures may terminate a plaintiff’s case)
- Christie v. Kimball, 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 (2012) (appellate review hampered by incomplete record; cannot presume error)