Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 19STCV45621, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV45621    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             January 31, 2025

Case Name:                Shelton v. Hyundai Motor America

Case No.:                    19STCV45621

Matter:                        Motion to Augment Expert Witness List on Remand 

Moving Party:             Plaintiff James Shelton

             This is a personal injury action. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Shelton (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Hyundai Motor America. The pleading alleges that Plaintiff injured the tips of the fingers on his right hand when they were caught between the window and window frame of his 2016 Hyundai Equus. The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2.) strict liability – design defect, (3.) strict liability – manufacturing defect, (4.) breach of express warranty, and (5.) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

            On January 3, 2022, Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion for summary judgment or, the alternative, motion for summary adjudication was granted by the trial court in its entirety; Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication as to all causes of action with the exception of Plaintiff’s manufacturing defect claim. The case was remanded on October 11, 2023.

            On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff moved to augment his expert witness list. Defendant opposes the motion. 

            The motion to augment expert witness list on remand is granted.

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves to augment his expert witness list pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610 to add three experts: (1.) Thomas Lepper CFEI, CVFI. (2.) Simon Dardashti, M.D., M.S, and (3.) Jesse L. Wobrock, Ph.D.

            Section 2034.610 governs the procedure for a party to seek to augment an expert witness list. Pursuant to that section: “(a) On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to ... [¶] (1) Augment that party's expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained.” The statute further requires that the parties first meet and confer and that any motion “shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery ... to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a), (b).)

            In moving for relief, Plaintiff first argues there is good cause to augment the expert witness list. Specifically, he states that these new experts will provide testimony necessary to address new issues raised by the appellate ruling. Plaintiff, however, fails to identify the “new issues” raised. Further, based on the summary of the experts provided in the moving papers, the proposed experts do not address any “new” issue.

            In reversing the trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication of the manufacturing defect-strict liability cause of action, the Court of Appeal explained: “The Equus owner’s manual supports the inference that the automatic reverse feature failed to function as intended in plaintiff’s car.”

            Here, according to the moving papers, Thomas Lepper will provide analysis on the manufacturing defect. Simon Dardashti will provide testimony regarding his examination, evaluation, and impressions of Plaintiff, specifically the chronic pain and lasting physical impairments Plaintiff has experienced as a result of the incident. Finally, Jesse L. Wobrock will provide analysis and reconstruction of the incident involved in this case.

            As the opposition notes, Plaintiff has alleged a manufacturing defect claim against Defendant since the inception of the case, and Plaintiff has already designated a liability expert, Dr. David Bosch. There is no “new” issue raised by the Court of Appeal decision that these experts will address.

However, Plaintiff also argues that, after remand, discovery is reopened and reset, allowing Plaintiff to augment his experts. This argument has merit.

“[I]n the case of a mistrial, order granting a new trial, or remand for a new trial after reversal of a judgment on appeal, the last date for completing discovery is 15 days before the date initially set for the new trial of the action.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 247.)

The reopening of discovery extends to the designation of experts. (See Guzman v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 705, 706.) In Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1291, the court held that a mistrial restarts the time limitations on discovery and permits the parties to file new demands for the exchange of expert witness information. Likewise, in Hirano v. Hirano (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1, 9, the court held that “[t]he rule that discovery is automatically reopened following reversal on appeal is particularly applicable to expert witness discovery.” The court explained that parties may be forced to change expert witnesses due to a prior witness's unavailability or to respond to additional evidence raised in the new trial. (Ibid.)

The opposition does not address these legal arguments. Moreover, this legal authority is clear, and, on these grounds, Plaintiff is entitled to augment his witness list.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the motion causes no prejudice to Defendant. In response, Defendant presents no evidence of prejudice. (Opp. 3:11-13 [arguing only that “[t]he proposed schedule prejudices defendant, as it proposes an expert designation deadline for the same day as the hearing on this motion, and rebuttal expert designation only a week later.”].) The Court rejects Defendant’s claim of prejudice.

Here, as in Guzman, Plaintiff sought to augment well in advance of trial by first raising the issue on November 6 – approximately five months before trial. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3.)

Trial is set for April 14, 2025. Plaintiff proposes the following schedule: (a.) Deadlines for designating experts and producing reports: January 31, 2025; (b.) Deadlines for rebuttal expert designations: February 7, 2025; and (c.) Deadlines for expert depositions: March 28, 2025. Defendant objects and contends that the statutory deadlines should apply.

The Court has authority to modify the date of the exchange of expert witness information.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.230, subd. (b).)  The parties shall exchange the information and reports required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.260 and 2034.270 on February 10, 2025. Supplemental expert witness designations, information, and reports required by section 2034.280 shall occur on February 27, 2025. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to schedule dates for depositions of experts. All expert discovery must be completed on or before March 28, 2025.

This is sufficient time to depose expert witnesses. (Guzman v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 708 [seeking to augment less than two months before trial after a new trial motion was granted].) There is no prejudice from granting augmentation of the expert designation.

Conclusion

            The motion to augment Plaintiff’s expert witness list is granted.  

            In reply, Plaintiff argues that he has – in his moving papers – sought monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 for Defendant’s unreasonable conduct and misuse of the discovery process. The Court was unable to find this request in the moving papers; the notice of motion does not specify this relief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).). As such, this request was not properly noticed and is not properly before this Court.