Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 21STCV36920, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36920 Hearing Date: May 28, 2025 Dept: 200
LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT
WEST DISTRICT -
BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE
DEPT. 200
TENTATIVE RULING ON AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT TO PRECLUDE MULTIPLE LIABILITY EXPERTS
Rockney Jacobs v.
Sinai Abrahami, et al., Case No. 21STCV36920
Trial Date: May 28, 2025, 8:30 a.m.
The Court has reviewed the above-referenced amended motion and Opposition and familiarized itself with the nature of the case. This is a slip and fall case. Jacobs alleges he fell on the interior stairs of a residential unit owned by defendant landlord. Jacobs states in his expert designation that he has two liability experts with similar professional backgrounds, Brad Avrit and Richard Gorb. As to both, he states that they will testify to the building code, the condition of the stairs and related issues. Abrahami contends that Jacobs designating two liability experts is cumulative, under Evidence Code sec. 723, and that Jacobs should be able to call one of these witnesses but not both, citing Belfiore-Braman v. Rotenberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 234. Jacobs argues in response that the issues here justify the need for multiple expert opinions, that the motion does not provide the specifics of the opinions to allow a determination whether their testimony would be cumulative and that an additional expert may be appropriate where it is an “area that hasn’t been gone into,” citing Scalere v. Stenson (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1446.
This case does not appear to be so complex as to require two liability experts on the nature of the condition of the stairs. Further, Jacobs has not identified any subject as to which they will provide different testimony. Under Evid. Code sec. 352, a second expert on liability would provide insufficient probative evidence weighed against the undue consumption of time. Were the second expert to give an opinion on the same subject as the first expert, the second expert’s testimony would be cumulative under Evid. Code sec. 723. However, if there was some good reason that the first expert could not provide an opinion on a topic for which he was designated to give testimony concerning that the second expert could opine concerning, or which was different testimony, Jacobs may be allowed to call that second expert at least on that “area that hasn’t been gone into.” Belfiore, supra, relies in part on Scalere, supra, and the reasoning of the two cases are not inconsistent.
Therefore, the Court grants the motion in part by limiting the second liability expert’s testimony to such topic as the first expert does not testify concerning. The Court will hear further on this issue after the first expert has testified.