Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV48368, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48368    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Janet Mejia filed this action against Defendant Edwardus Brink (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendant moves for leave to submit tardy expert witness information.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before July 20, 2022.  As of July 28, 2022, no opposition has been received. 

2. Motion for Leave to Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information  

A party who fails to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange may seek leave to submit that information on a later date.  (CCP § 2034.710(a).)  Absent “exceptional circumstances,” the motion for permission to file a tardy list must be made early enough to permit deposing the experts involved before the 15–day cut-off on expert witness depositions.  (CCP §§ 2034.710(b), 2024.030.) 

The court may permit tardy submission of expert witness lists and information if the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses.

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.

(c) The court has determined that the moving party did all of the following:

(1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

(2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

(3) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

(d) The order is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.

(CCP § 2034.720.)  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2034.710(c).) 

            Here, Defendant provides that he served a demand for exchange of expert witness information on February 12, 2021, with an exchange date of April 28, 2022.  Defendant asserts that due to Defendant’s counsel’s mistake, surprise, inadvertence and excusable neglect, Defendant served his expert witness designation one day late on April 29, 2022.  Defense counsel submits a declaration attesting that counsel mistakenly calendared the expert witness designation due date as April 29, 2022.  (Mot. Kane Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant’s counsel then met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not agree to withdraw an objection to the untimely designation.  (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)

            Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and thus, there is no showing that Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s absence of an expert witness list to any extent.  Moreover, the court notes that pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties, the initial trial date was continued to February 17, 2023, with all discovery and motions cutoff dates to be based on the new trial date.  There is no showing Plaintiff will be prejudiced in maintaining his action as a result.  Furthermore, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration establishes the failure to submit the information was the result of mistake, surprise, inadvertence and excusable neglect, and Defendant has promptly served a copy of the proposed expert witness information after realizing the mistake. 

            Defendant’s motion is unopposed and granted subject to Defendant making their expert immediately available to be deposed. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 2^nd day of August 2022