Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV23573, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV23573 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: 74
Ledesma v. Moradzadeh et al.
Defendants General Anesthesia Specialist Partnership Medical Group and Michelle Dee’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Geni Bennetts
BACKGROUND
This motion arises out of a medical malpractice claim. After a motion for summary adjudication of issues, only a single cause of action for negligence remains against defendants General Anesthesia Specialist Partnership Medical Group (GASP), Michele Dee (Dee) (collectively Defendants) and Arash Moradzadeh (Moradzadeh). On November 9, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Geni Bennetts.
LEGAL STANDARD
Parties exchange expert witness information after a demand for an exchange of expert witness information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(a).) The exchange must include “(1) [a] list setting forth the name and address of a person whose expert opinion that party expects to offer in evidence at the trial.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(b)(1).) The list should include (1) a statement of the qualifications of each expert, (2) a statement of the general substance of the testimony that the expert is expected to give, (3) a representation that the expert has agreed to testify at trial, (4) a representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiar with the action to give meaningful testimony, and (5) the expert’s hourly and daily fee. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(c).)
A party may provide a supplemental expert witness list within 20 days of the exchange to add an expert “who will express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party to the exchange, if the party supplementing an expert witness list has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.280(a).)
Upon the timely objection of a party, the Court shall exclude the expert witness if the party has unreasonably failed to: (a) List that witness as an expert under Section 2034.260; (b) Submit an expert witness declaration; (c) Produce reports and writings of expert witnesses; and (d) Make that expert available for a deposition. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.) A court may exclude an expert’s testimony on specific subjects when the supplemental expert witness declaration fails to provide fair notice that those subjects will be covered in that supplemental expert’s testimony. (Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 129, 181-185.)
DISCUSSION
On July 8, 2024, parties served their Designation of Expert Witnesses. Defendants designated Dr. Kevin Becker (Dr. Becker) to testify on “medical care and treatment provided to the plaintiff and the issues of standard of care, causation and damages.” (Kjar Decl., Ex. “B.”) Plaintiff designated Dr. Charles Sophy (Dr. Sophy) to testify on “emotional distress, causation, damages, defendants’ and standard industry practices and procedures, standard of cares and all topics the expert is qualified to opine on in relation to the foregoing or any related topics. (Kjar Decl., Ex. “C.”)
On July 29, 2024, parties exchanged their supplemental expert lists. Plaintiff identified Dr. Geni Bennetts (Dr. Bennetts) to testify on “the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, standard of care, causation and damages, and all topics the expert is qualified to opine on in relations to the foregoing or any related topics.” (Kjar Decl., Ex. “E.”)
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Bennetts’ testimony is responsive to Defendants’ experts addressing medical professional privacy standards of care, HIPAA, medical ethics, and policies and procedures. Plaintiff’s contention is substantially more detailed than the supplemental expert witness declaration. The court may exclude supplemental expert testimony when the supplemental witness declaration fails to provide fair notice of the subjects that will be covered in the testimony. (Ajaxo, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.5th 129, 181-189.) Therefore, the Court will consider the description stated in the Supplemental Expert Witness Declaration.
Based only on the Plaintiff’s designations describing the two experts, it appears that Dr. Bennetts’ testimony only differs from Dr. Sophy in relation to “medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.” This is directly responsive to Dr. Becker’s testimony on “medical care and treatment provided to Plaintiff.” The court will exclude expert testimony from Dr. Bennett except for testimony about the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants in part Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness. Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Geni Bennett may only testify about the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.
Defendants to give notice.
////////////////////////
Defendants General Anesthesia Specialist Partnership Medical Group and Michelle Dee’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Athleo Cambre
BACKGROUND
This motion arises out of a medical malpractice claim. After a motion for summary adjudication of issues, only a single cause of action for negligence remains against defendants General Anesthesia Specialist Partnership Medical Group (GASP), Michele Dee (Dee) and Arash Moradzadeh. On November 9, 2024, defendant Moradzadeh (Defendant) filed this motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Athleo Cambre (Dr. Cambre).
LEGAL STANDARD
Parties exchange expert witness information after a demand for an exchange of expert witness information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(a).) The exchange must include “(1) [a] list setting forth the name and address of a person whose expert opinion that party expects to offer in evidence at the trial.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(b)(1).) The list should include (1) a statement of the qualifications of each expert, (2) a statement of the general substance of the testimony that the expert is expected to give, (3) a representation that the expert has greed to testify at trial, (4) a representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiarity with the action to give meaningful testimony, and (5) the expert’s hourly and daily fee. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260(c).)
A party may provide a supplemental expert witness list within 20 days of the exchange to add an expert “who will express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party to the exchange, if the party supplementing an expert witness list has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.280(a).)
Upon the timely objection of a party, the Court shall exclude the expert witness if the party has unreasonably failed to: (a) List that witness as an expert under Section 2034.260; (b) Submit an expert witness declaration; (c) Produce reports and writings of expert witnesses; and (d) Make that expert available for a deposition under Article 3. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.) A court may exclude an expert’s testimony on specific subjects when the declaration fails to provide fair notice that those subjects will be covered in that supplemental expert’s testimony. (Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 129, 181-185.)
DISCUSSION
On July 8, 2024, parties served their Designation of Expert Witnesses. Defendants designated Linton Mohammed as an expert witness in forensic documents and handwriting. (Okayo Decl., Ex. “B.”) Defendants GASP and Dee designated Dr. Kevin Becker as an expert regarding the anesthesiology services provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff designated Dr. Charles Sophy (Dr. Sophy) to testify on “emotional distress, causation, damages, defendants’ and standard industry practices and procedures, standard of cares and all topics the expert is qualified to opine on in relation to the foregoing or any related topics. (Okayo Decl., Ex. “D.”)
On July 29, 2024, parties exchanged their supplemental expert lists. Plaintiff identified Dr. Athleo Cambre, Jr (Dr. Cambre) to testify regarding “the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, standard of care, causation and damages, and all topics the expert is qualified to opine on in relations to the foregoing or any related topics.” (Okayo Decl., Ex. “G.”)
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Cambre is expected to testify about the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff as well as to opine on issues related to medical ethics, responsibilities, and media for plastic surgery medical professionals. (Opp., p. 4.) Plaintiff’s contention is substantially more detailed than the supplemental witness declaration. The court may exclude supplemental expert testimony when the declaration fails to provide fair notice of the subjects that will be covered in the testimony. (Ajaxo, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.5th 129, 181-189.) Therefore, the Court will consider the description stated in the Supplemental Expert Witness Declaration.
Based only on the Plaintiff’s designations describing the two experts, it appears that Dr. Cambre’s testimony differs from Dr. Sophy only in relation to “medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.” This is directly responsive to Dr. Becker’s testimony on “medical care and treatment provided to Plaintiff.”
Defendant also alleges that Dr. Cambre’s testimony would be redundant and cumulative given that Plaintiff also supplementally designated Dr. Geni A. Bennetts as an expert on the same subjects. Defendant cites to Basham v. Babcock (1996) to support that parties are generally expected to have only one expert per specialty. (44 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1723.) Basham specifically states that it is improper to rule that “the experts’ testimony could not be redundant.” (Id. at p. 1723.) Therefore, the Court declines to exclude Dr. Cambre’s testimony simply because it may be redundant.
The court will exclude expert testimony from Dr. Cambre except for testimony about the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants in part Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness. Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Athleo Cambre may only testify about the medical care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff.
Defendants to give notice.