In re La Sierra Financial Services, Inc., 290 B.R. 718 ( 9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)
          Court will not disturb a denial of a continuance for discovery unless the party shows actual and substantial prejudice.

In re Brewster, 243 B.R. 51, 57 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)
          “In reviewing a denial of a continuance, we consider four factors: (1) the extent of the appellant's diligence in efforts to be prepared for trial; (2) the likelihood that the need for a continuance would have been met if the continuance had been granted; (3) the extent to which a continuance would inconvenience the court and the opposing party; and (4) the amount of harm the appellant may have suffered as a result of the denial of the continuance. United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1995).”

In re Bittleman, 107 B.R. 230 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1988)
          Denial of one hour continuance to produce witnesses is abuse of discretion