Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

Businessman on life preserver (illustration)

The Padda holding emphasizes the importance of immediately notifying the court of any eleventh-hour unavailability of a key witness at trial.

July 10, 2018
Angela S. Haskins & Allegra Perez - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

In Padda v. Superior Court (GI Excellence), No. E070522, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, recently held that a trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ request for a trial continuance where their key expert witness suddenly became ill twelve days before trial and before his deposition had been taken.

Reprinted courtesy of Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Allegra Perez, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@hbblaw.com



714.701.9180

Arrange No Cost Consultation

 

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions

 

Copyright 2018 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved