Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01287074, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Kenji Kawashima

Motion to Designate Case as Complex Litigation

The Motion to Designate Case Complex brought by Plaintiff Kenji Kawashima is DENIED, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated a complex designation is warranted.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.400(a), “[a] ‘complex case’ is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(a).)

Relevant herein, among the factors to be considered in deciding whether an action is complex, is whether an action is likely to involve “[n]umerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve” and “[m]anagement of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(b)(1) and (2).)

While Plaintiff’s Counsel identifies a long list of possible witnesses, Counsel concedes the majority have yet to be deposed. (¶3 of Hoffman Declaration).  Additionally, overlap appears among the identified witnesses. (Id.) For example, Plaintiff identifies multiple witnesses from Nepomnaschy Chriopractic, Inc., Shin MRI and California Sports and Spine Center. (¶3(c), (d), (g), (h), (j) and (k) of Hoffman Declaration). 

Similarly, the list of witnesses includes several friends and family members, intended to testify as to “how the collision has changed and affected Plaintiff.” (¶3(x) of Hoffman Declaration.) 

It is unclear yet, whether the testimony of these individuals will be redundant or whether each individual is necessary, to provide independent information.  As noted by Defendant, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the Court has discretion to “exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will…necessitate undue consumption of time…” (Evid. Code, §352.)

As Plaintiff has yet to depose the identified witnesses and given the Court’s ability to exclude redundant testimony, it is unclear how many witnesses will ultimately be necessary.