Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCV24611, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.
Case Number: 19STCV24611 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiffs, vs. GLENN SOLOMON, et al., Defendants. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
DESIGNATION Date:
March 13, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 Jury Trial: April 24, 2023 |
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiffs
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants
The
Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a
motion to augment expert witness disclosure (the “Motion”). The Motion seeks to add Richard Devine, Ph.D.
(“Devine”) as an expert economist in lieu of Plaintiffs’ currently designated
expert William Ingersoll, Ph.D. (“Ingersoll”).
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Defendants’ objections to the reply
brief (the “Reply”) are SUSTAINED.
DISCUSSION
Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)
section 2034.620, the court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert
witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are
satisfied:
(a) The court has
taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the 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 either of the
following:
(1) The moving party
would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that
expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony
of that expert witness.
(2)
The
moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the
different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has
done both of the following:
(A) Sought leave to
augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer
the different or additional testimony.
(B) Promptly
thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning
the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties
who have appeared in the action.
(CCP § 2034.620,
subds. (a)-(c).)
Plaintiffs provide evidence that they initially
intended to retain Devine as an expert witness, but did not do so after, in
2022, their counsel learned that Devine might not be available to continue
testifying as an expert witness due to health concerns. (Declaration of Frances M. Campbell (“Campbell
Decl.”) ¶ 3.) As a result of their
concerns over Devine’s ability to participate as an expert, Plaintiffs
thereafter retained Ingersoll, who they designated as their expert witness on
May 31, 2022. (See id., Exhibit
A.) On May 31, 2022, Defendants also
disclosed their expert witnesses, which include two experts related to economic
damages. (Campbell Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit
B.) On June 27, 2022, the trial was
continued from July 18, 2022 to April 24, 2023.
(Campbell Decl. ¶ 5.) That day,
Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that deadlines related to expert discovery
would track the new trial date. (Id.)
In February 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel learned that
Devine had recovered from his illness and was again available to testify as an
expert witness. (Campbell Decl. ¶
6.) Despite meet and confer efforts,
Defendants did not agree to stipulate to allow Plaintiffs to augment their
expert witness list. (See Campbell
Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiffs offered to pay
Devine’s hourly fee if Defendants decide to depose him. (Campbell Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs have not yet deposed Defendants’
economic experts. (Campbell Decl. ¶ 10.)
Defendants
argue that they would be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to augment their
expert designations and that Plaintiffs lack the authority to withdraw
Ingersoll because he has already been deposed.
Ingersoll was deposed on June 23, 2022.
(Declaration of Patrick J. McCormick (“McCormick Decl.”) ¶ 1.) Defendants’ experts and counsel analyzed
Ingersoll’s findings and Defendants’ litigation strategy has been based, in
part, on Ingersoll’s opinions. (See McCormick
Decl. ¶¶ 2, 9.)
Defendants
argue that under County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Hernandez) (1990)
22 Cal.App.3d 647 (“Hernandez”), an expert witness may be withdrawn only
if they have not already been deposed.
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ interpretation of the scope of the
ruling in Hernandez. In Hernandez,
the appellate court considered whether a party may withdraw its designation of
a yet-undeposed expert witness while still retaining that expert as a consultant,
thereby precluding the opposing party from deposing or retaining the
expert. (See Hernandez, supra, 222
Cal.App.3d at 700, 703.) The Hernandez
court determined that an expert witness could be withdrawn as an expert and
continue being retained as a consultant in circumstances where the expert had
not yet been deposed. (See id. at
703-04.) Here, even if Plaintiffs do not
call Ingersoll to testify during trial, because he has been deposed, Defendants
are entitled to call him as a witness. (See
CCP § 2034.310.)
The Court has
taken into consideration Defendants’ reliance on Ingersoll’s opinions thus far,
their ability to maintain their defense, and Plaintiffs’ promptness in seeking
to augment their expert designations once they learned of Devine’s
recovery. Notably, Defendants do not
argue or present evidence that they will be unable to depose Devine or be ready
for trial by April 24, 2023. (See
Dickison v. Howen (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1479.) Furthermore, Defendants’ economic experts
have not yet been deposed. For these
reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and will allow Plaintiffs to add Devine as
an expert. Plaintiffs are to be
responsible for paying Devine’s fees in the event Defendants choose to depose him.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this
ruling.
In consideration of the current COVID-19
pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on
all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the
parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an
appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m.
on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then
inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held.
The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing
day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the
Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This
rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper
social distancing.
Parties who intend
to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If the
department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the
hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 13th day of March 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Holly J.
Fujie Judge of the
Superior Court |