Doctor’s Doctor’s Doctor Doctors Doctor’s Doctor’s Doctored Doctor’s Doctor.

Padda v. Superior Court, No. E070522 (D4d2 Jul. 6, 2018)
 
This short opinion granting a writ requiring a trial continuance is a little hard to follow. Mostly because everyone’s a doctor. It’s an employment dispute between two doctors and their former practice, which was run by some other doctors. It involves the parties’ gastroenterology experts (doctors) one of whom fell ill right between trial, and whose own doctor advised that he sit it out awhile.

Two weeks before trial, and before he was deposed, Plaintiffs’ gastroenterology expert was diagnosed with a hemorrhagic cyst in his kidney. The expert’s doctors advised him to take it easy, including not testifying at trial. Plaintiffs moved for a continuance under Code of Civil Procedure § 595.4, which permits a continuance when a material witness isn’t available. The moving party needs to file a declaration summarizing the testimony, and the opposing party has a chance to stipulate to admit it, which precludes a continuance. The non-moving party here wouldn’t stipulate, so the statute was satisfied.

So the Court of Appeal holds that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the continuance. The court’s alternative solution—to immediately start trial but then delay it while the doctor could find a doctor whose doctor was ok with the doctor being the doctor’s doctor—didn’t make much sense. Indeed, even though the nonmoving party didn’t want the continuance, it didn’t support that plan.

Writ granted.