Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Plaintiff propounded his first set of written discovery on Defendants in May 2020, and motion work on the discovery followed, extending into the spring of 2021. (Decl. of Andrew L. Thrasher ISO Mot. (“Trasher Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9.) Additional discovery followed. Pertinent to this motion, Plaintiff served a Notice of Site Inspection of CDCR’s California State Prison on June 20, 2024, and 6 deposition notices on October 1, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 18.) Throughout October of 2024, Plaintiff exchanged a series of over a dozen meet and confer communications with Defendants’ former counsel, Kelly Savage Day, regarding Plaintiff’s site inspection and deposition notices. (Id. at ¶ 19.) These discovery issues were not resolved, and effective November 24, 2024, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard (“Kronick”) substituted into the case as Defendants’ counsel. (Id. at ¶ 20.)

As of December 2024, the transition of file materials to Kronick was impeded by Ms. Savage Day’s ongoing health issues. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 21.) On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff met and conferred with Kronick concerning Krosnick’s difficulty in managing the voluminous amount of disorganized case materials provided to them by Ms. Savage Day and Kronick’s proposal for a stipulated trial continuance. (Id. at ¶ 22.) In early January 2025, the parties exchanged emails concerning Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery that was the subject of ongoing meet and confer efforts and the forthcoming stipulation to continue trial. (Id. at ¶ 24.)

On February 3, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ Ex Parte Application/Stipulation to continue the trial (and related dates) from July 14, 2025 to January 27, 2026. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 28.) On February 7, 2025, the parties agreed to a four-week extension to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel deadline concerning the outstanding discovery that was the subject of ongoing meet and confer efforts, which included the site inspection, efforts to schedule depositions, and Defendants’ amended responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production Nos. 96-126. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Meet and confer efforts concerning outstanding discovery continued through the summer of 2025. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-42.)

On September 9, 2025, the parties had a telephone conference during which Kronick proposed a further trial continuance to continue the trial into the summer of 2026 because they were still organizing their case files following the transfer of the case from Ms. Savage Day. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 2[1].) Kronick further informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they discovered boxes of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 06/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

documents that Ms. Savage Day either did not fully produce or did not properly record. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Kronick proposed that Defendants would produce to Plaintiff all documents they already produced or should have produced with bates stamps to allow Plaintiff to track and compare the different production of documents. (Ibid.)

In late September 2025, the parties had a further telephonic meeting, during which they discussed the site inspection, a stipulated trial continuance, mediation, and a timeline for Defendants’ large document production. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On October 13, 2025, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application based on the parties’ stipulation. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The Court granted the Ex Parte Application on October 14, 2025, and reset trial for August 17, 2026 and the Mandatory Settlement Conference for July 15, 2026. (Ex Parte Application Order, Oct. 14, 2025.) The Court also extended the five-year statute pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and ordered all trial and discovery related deadlines to be based on the new trial date. (Ibid.)

On October 22, 2025, the parties engaged in a telephonic meeting during which Kronick stated that their office was preparing all documents for renewed production and that their office would seek to claw back any previously produced documents that were privileged and/or private. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 7.) On November 10, 2025, the parties engaged in a meet and confer meeting concerning mediation, a deadline for Defendants’ renewed document production, and the site inspection. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The parties further discussed these issues, along with the scheduling of depositions, in November 2025 through January 2026. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-15.)

On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff propounded deposition subpoenas for witnesses Dr. Eilya Moghaddam and Nereyda Rivera and served Defendants with additional written discovery. (Thrasher Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff served Defendants with additional sets of written discovery on February 13, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 18.)

On February 20, 2026, Defendants produced their renewed document production of over 8,597 documents with accompanying privilege log and bates stamp index/cross-reference, and list of allegedly privileged documents Defendants wish to claw back from Plaintiff. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 20.) On February 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel site inspection. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff has propounded additional discovery on Defendants, Defendants have responded to some of discovery, and the parties have continued to meet and confer concerning several discovery issues. (Trasher Decl. ¶¶ 21-40.) Further, Defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication of issues on April 23, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 32.) That motion is scheduled for hearing on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 06/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

July 17, 2026.

On May 8, 2026, the parties engaged in a telephonic meet and confer discussion concerning several sets of Plaintiff’s written discovery, the scheduling of depositions, dates for the site inspection, and Defendants’ summary adjudication motion. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 41.) Very little was resolved during the discussion except that Defendants provided dates in late June 2026 for the site inspection. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Plaintiff now moves for an order vacating the August 17, 2026 trial date and for the matter to be referred to trial setting or for a new trial date to be set for November 2, 2026, or a mutually agreeable date before the end of Plaintiff’s five-year statute, on or about December 21, 2026. Plaintiff also asks that the July 15, 2026 Mandatory Settlement Conference be vacated and continued to a mutually agreeable date and that all deadlines calculated by the initial trial date be extended and calculated using the new trial date. Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for the continuance because of Defendants’ delayed production of over 8,000 documents and accompanying claw back request of documents produced years ago by prior counsel. Plaintiff argues:

Despite his efforts, Plaintiff has not yet taken any of his noticed depositions and a very substantial amount of written discovery remains unresolved. Defendants’ refusal to meet their discovery obligations created these issues.

Defendants’ renewed document production and accompanying claw back request have placed a substantial prejudicial burden on Plaintiff. Plaintiff now can propound significant discovery he needs to prepare for trial, and he has begun doing so; however, Plaintiff must also contend with Defendants’ overburdensome prejudicial claw back request and Motion for Summary Adjudication. Defendants’ unsettled claw back requests have placed Plaintiff in a highly prejudiced position because many of the documents at issue in the claw back request are needed to fairly oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication and to adequately prepare for both mediation and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 06/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

trial. Plaintiff has long-since woven many of the documents, now at issue, into his trial strategy.

(Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot. 11:2-12.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers that November 2, 2026, is the only remaining date available in his trial calendar before the five-year statute runs. (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 44.) However, Plaintiff is agreeable to setting this case for trial in 2027 on a mutually convenient date if Defendants are willing to waive or stipulate out the five-year deadline. (Id. at ¶ 45.)

Defendants oppose the motion, rejoining that Defendants are ready to proceed to trial, the short continuance Plaintiff requests does not provide a meaningful opportunity for Plaintiff to further discover the case, and the requested continuance is burdensome for the Court and prejudicial to Defendants, who have already waited six years for their day in court. (Opp’n 4:27-5:4.) Defendants further respond that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the continuance.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.)

“Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: [¶] (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or [¶] (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “In ruling on a motion . . . for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination[,]” which may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 06/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the continuance. A significant number of discovery issues remain outstanding, which may significantly impact the presentation of trial, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s diligence. Moreover, Defendants have not shown how they would be prejudiced by the brief continuance Plaintiff requests, especially after Defendants initiated two prior trial continuances, which were predicated on the change of defense counsel.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted. The July 15, 2026 Mandatory Settlement Conference and August 17, 2026 trial dates are VACATED.

Trial is set for November 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for October 5, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 450. All trial related and discovery deadlines shall be governed by the new trial date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 06/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The paragraph numbering used in the Thrasher Declaration starts over at paragraph 1 after paragraph 42 on page 8 of the Declaration.

*** 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 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. ***