Motion for Continuance: Grounds, Procedure, and Likelihood of Success

A motion for continuance asks the court to delay a scheduled hearing, trial, or filing deadline to a later date. Continuances are routine procedural requests, but they are never automatic; the judge has discretion, and the moving party must show good cause supported by specific facts. Common grounds include attorney unavailability, witness scheduling, late-produced discovery, illness, or the need for substitution of counsel.

What follows breaks down the good-cause standard, the practical strategy for getting a continuance granted, the common reasons judges deny them, and the local-practice variations that determine whether your motion succeeds. Read it beside the motion to vacate guide for setting aside missed deadlines and the motion to compel guide for discovery-driven scheduling disputes.

Good-Cause Standard

Continuance is what a court may grant to delay proceedings until a later date. Most courts require a written motion (or oral request followed by written confirmation) showing:

The federal standard for continuance in civil cases comes from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which authorizes a court to extend time for good cause. In criminal cases the analysis runs through 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (the Speedy Trial Act), which excludes from the seventy-day clock any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court if the ends-of-justice findings under § 3161(h)(7)(A) are satisfied. The Supreme Court held in Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983), that the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a continuance, reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Local rules in most district courts (e.g., S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 6.1) require a written motion stating the reason and any prior continuances.

The federal standard for continuance in civil cases comes from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which allows a court to extend time for good cause. In criminal cases the analysis runs through 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (the Speedy Trial Act), which excludes from the seventy-day clock any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court if the ends-of-justice findings under § 3161(h)(7)(A) are satisfied. The Supreme Court held in Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983), that the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a continuance, reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Local rules in most district courts (e.g., S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 6.1) require a written motion stating the reason and any prior continuances.

• Good cause for the delay (the specific reason).
• The length of delay requested and a proposed new date.
• Whether the opposing party consents or objects.
• The diligence of the moving party in trying to avoid the conflict.
• The prejudice (or absence of prejudice) to the opposing party.

Good cause is a fact-specific inquiry. Courts grant routine extensions liberally early in a case but become stricter as trial approaches. A continuance requested two weeks before trial faces a far higher burden than one requested six months out.

Common Grounds for Continuance

The grounds courts most often accept include:

Ground	Likelihood of grant	Documentation needed
Attorney calendar conflict (another trial)	High if early; moderate near trial	Other case caption and trial order
Illness of attorney, party, or witness	High	Medical records or physician letter
Late-produced discovery requiring review	Moderate to high	Production date and volume
Need to secure essential witness	Moderate; varies by witness importance	Witness declaration and unavailability proof
Substitution of counsel	Moderate; courts dislike eve-of-trial substitutions	Notice of substitution and reason
Settlement negotiations	Often granted	Joint declaration or stipulation
Religious holiday	Routinely granted	Holiday observance information
Force majeure (weather, court closure)	Granted automatically by court	Court order or notice

Strategic Approach

Lawyers typically seek continuances to obtain additional time to prepare for trial. Common reasons for a continuance include time to secure a witness or new counsel, time to review new evidence, or lack of preparation time due to other client obligations or case complexities. The most successful motions:

1. File as early as possible after the conflict arises (do not wait).
2. Conferred with opposing counsel before filing; an unopposed motion is granted at much higher rates.
3. Provide specific facts and supporting documentation.
4. Propose a specific new date that accommodates the court's calendar.
5. Are limited to a single, reasonable extension; serial continuance requests draw judicial skepticism.

Reasons Continuances Are Denied

A continuance is not guaranteed; the judge has discretion on whether or not to grant the request. Common reasons for denial:

Common errors that doom the motion: failing to show diligence (the moving party knew of the conflict for weeks), failing to consult opposing counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and most local rules requiring a meet-and-confer, and asking on the eve of trial after the jury has been summoned. Under Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964), there is no mechanical test for when denial of a continuance violates due process; the court considers the diligence of the movant, the purpose of the continuance, the inconvenience to the court and parties, and the prejudice to the movant. In federal criminal practice, a continuance over the defendant's objection is reviewed under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).

• The motion is filed too late (week-of-trial requests with no urgency).
• The party has already received multiple continuances.
• The asserted reason is generic ("more time to prepare") without specific facts.
• Opposing counsel objects with concrete prejudice (witness availability, costs already incurred).
• The trial date was the result of a prior agreed scheduling order.
• The pending claim is time-sensitive (preliminary injunction, restraining order).

State-Specific Practice

A request for a continuance in Texas, for example, involves submitting a written motion to the court, typically accompanied by a valid reason such as illness, scheduling conflicts, or the unavailability of a critical witness, to delay a scheduled court hearing or trial. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 requires "sufficient cause supported by affidavit." California requires similarly detailed declarations under California Rules of Court 3.1332. New York generally allows a single first adjournment as of right but requires good cause for later requests.

Always check the court's website for local forms that you may need. Many jurisdictions require a specific form, a particular notice period, or a meet-and-confer certification.

Procedural Mechanics

The motion typically includes:

• The motion itself stating the original date, the proposed new date, and the reason.
• A supporting declaration from the attorney or party.
• Documentation: medical records, conflict trial orders, discovery production logs.
• A statement of opposing counsel's position (unopposed, opposed, no response).
• A proposed order.

Local rules often require notice of motion with specific advance time (3, 7, 14 days). Trial-eve emergencies may be heard ex parte with informal notice, but courts disfavor ex parte continuance requests as a routine practice.

Effect on Other Deadlines

A continuance of trial typically reschedules all related deadlines (pretrial conference, motions in limine, jury instruction filings) automatically through the new scheduling order. A continuance of a single hearing usually does not reset other deadlines unless the order specifies. Always read the granting order carefully.

When You Need an Attorney

Continuance motions are routine but their denial can be case-defining. Legal Tank's attorney-drafted motion for continuance service handles the motion, declaration, and proposed order. The motion for continuance template downloads at no cost for pro-se litigants. For broader pretrial strategy, see the motion to compel guide and the motion in limine overview.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a motion for continuance a good thing?

Whether a continuance helps depends on the moving party's posture. Lawyers typically seek continuances to obtain additional time to prepare for trial. Common reasons include time to secure a witness or new counsel, time to review new evidence, or lack of preparation time due to other client obligations or case complexities. A continuance benefits a party that needs more time, but it can hurt a party who has invested in current scheduling, has witness availability locked in, or is facing a deteriorating evidentiary record.

What does motion of continuance mean?

A motion for continuance is a written request asking the court to delay a scheduled hearing, trial, or filing deadline to a later date. Continuance is what a court may grant to delay proceedings until a later date. The moving party must show good cause through specific facts and usually must propose a new date. The court has discretion to grant or deny based on the reason offered, the moving party's diligence, and the prejudice to the opposing side.

How hard is it to get a continuance?

A continuance is not guaranteed, as the judge has discretion on whether or not to grant the request. Always check the court's website for local forms that you may need. If you have any questions about the forms, you should reach out to an attorney for assistance. First continuances on documented grounds (illness, attorney trial conflict, religious holiday) are routinely granted. Multiple or eve-of-trial continuances face increasingly skeptical review and require stronger justification.

What is a motion for continuance in Texas?

A request for a continuance in Texas involves submitting a written motion to the court, typically accompanied by a valid reason such as illness, scheduling conflicts, or the unavailability of a critical witness, to delay a scheduled court hearing or trial. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 requires "sufficient cause supported by affidavit" rather than a generic recitation of inconvenience. The motion must include a specific reason, supporting declaration, and proposed new date, and is decided by the trial judge.