Opinion ID: 721476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Trial Continuance

Text: 29 AASTAR contends that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant its motion to continue the trial. On the first day of trial, AASTAR filed a motion entitled DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE. In that motion, AASTAR urged that a continuance was warranted because STAR failed to produce a witness for deposition despite the court's order to do so, and because STAR was effectively stonewalling discovery. 30 AASTAR's continuance motion also requested the alternative relief of preclusion of testimony by certain witnesses and preclusion of testimony by Austin relating to certain previously unproduced documents. The record shows that the court granted the alternative relief--the motion in limine--and that indeed, the witnesses in question did not testify. 31 AASTAR now complains that Austin was allowed to testify unrestricted and attempts to assign error to the court's refusal to grant the continuance. We are unpersuaded for two reasons. First, having received the alternative relief it requested, AASTAR cannot now complain that the court did not grant the continuance. Second, while Austin was allowed to testify about various documents that may have fallen within the in limine order, the record reveals no objection by AASTAR on this basis during Austin's testimony. On the contrary, in response to the trial judge's careful inquiries, AASTAR indicated that it had no objection to most of the documents introduced through Austin. 5 32 In sum, we find AASTAR's contention that the court erred in denying its request for a trial continuance to be without merit.