Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV07401, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07401    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff seeks a protective order compelling Defendant to choose between a neurosurgeon and orthopedist, or, in the alternative, for an order striking the expert designation of both. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s neurosurgeon and orthopedic spine surgeon are designated for the same purpose and will provide testimony on the same topics, and are therefore cumulative, resulting in unnecessary deposition costs and the possibility that Plaintiff will need to retain another expert in rebuttal. Plaintiff further argues there is no prejudice to Defendant, particularly as neither has conducted an IME of Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that the two experts practice in different areas of medicine and the designations demonstrate that the anticipated testimony will be different, in particular noting that neurosurgery and orthopedics are different fields of medicine.

In light of Defendant’s representation that the two experts are anticipated to opine as to different areas, the Court cannot conclude that the testimony will be cumulative, particularly without deposition transcripts. Plaintiff’s argument is based solely on the argument that one expert could testify about both topics.[1] Accordingly, the motion for protective order is denied. To the extent that the testimony is cumulative, Plaintiff can seek an order from the trial court limiting the testimony.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.