Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV19759, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19759    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision on the 10 Freeway near the Normandie and Adams exit in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s commercial truck struck the rear of her vehicle, pushing it into another vehicle after Plaintiff was cut off in traffic. Trial is currently set for June 23, 2025.

On December 14, 2024, Defendant served a Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Information with an exchange date of March 25, 2025. Defendant subsequently served a proper expert witness designation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260, identifying three retained experts and providing the required declarations.

On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff served her expert witness designation, identifying eight retained experts. On April 3, 2025, Defendant served deposition notices for all eight of Plaintiff’s experts. On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff withdrew six of the eight designated experts.

Defendant then re-noticed the depositions of the remaining two retained experts, Dr. Kelly S. Harvey and Dr. Stepan Kasimian, for April 25 and April 29, 2025, dates that fell before the expert discovery cutoff of April 29, 2025. Plaintiff failed to produce either expert for deposition, did not provide any alternative dates for availability, and has not offered any justification for the delay. No depositions have taken place. Defendant now moves the Court for an order excluding expert opinion testimony from Dr. Harvey and Dr. Kasimian.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300, the trial court must exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness offered by a party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following:

(a) List that witness as an expert in a timely designation;
(b) Submit a compliant expert witness declaration;
(c) Produce expert reports and writings as required by statute;
(d) Make the expert available for deposition.

The relevant basis for exclusion in this case is section 2034.300(d), as Plaintiff unreasonably failed to make her designated experts available for deposition.

Discussion

Defendant fully complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 and 2034.260 by timely serving its demand for exchange of expert witness information, disclosing its expert witnesses, and submitting proper expert witness declarations. Defendant also diligently and repeatedly attempted to depose Plaintiff’s retained experts within the expert discovery period. Despite Defendant’s multiple attempts and reasonable efforts to schedule these depositions, Plaintiff failed to produce either expert, failed to offer any alternative dates, and failed to provide any justification for the delay. Plaintiff also failed to file any opposition to this motion or present any evidence refuting Defendant’s claims.

Accordingly, the motion is granted. Dr. Kelly S. Harvey and Dr. Stepan Kasimian are precluded from offering any expert opinion, testimony, or writings at trial.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification. After withdrawing six of the eight retained experts, Plaintiff failed to produce the remaining two for deposition, failed to offer alternative dates, and failed to formally withdraw them, thereby forcing Defendant to incur attorney’s fees and expend resources to bring this motion.

Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,000 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant within 20 days of today’s date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.