Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV36290, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV36290 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Gilberto Avendano (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County MTA and Does 1-25 for general negligence and premises liability.
On November 12, 2020, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) filed an answer.
On June 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On July 31, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Trial is scheduled for March 13, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to issue a protective order and strike language in Plaintiff's expert witness designation purporting to designate unnamed treating physicians and healthcare providers.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, subdivision (a) provides:
“After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other’s expert trial witnesses to the following extent:
“(a) Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.210, subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260 provides in part:
“(a) All parties who have appeared in the action shall exchange information concerning expert witnesses in writing on or before the date of exchange specified in the demand. The exchange of information may occur at a meeting of the attorneys for the parties involved or by serving the information on the other party by any method specified in Section 1011 or 1013, on or before the date of exchange.
“(b) The exchange of expert witness information shall include either of the following:
“(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.
“(2) A statement that the party does not presently intend to offer the testimony of an expert witness.”
(Code
Civ. Proc., § 2034.260, subds. (a), (b).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250 provides in part:
“(a) A party who has been served with a demand to exchange information concerning expert trial witnesses may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.250,
subds. (a), (b).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant asks the Court to issue a protective order striking language in Plaintiff’s July 25, 2023, expert witness designation that refers to “all various treating physicians and healthcare providers . . . including but not limited to” seven named individuals. Defendant argues the quoted language violates Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 and 2034.260, subdivision (b)(1), because it does not provide the name and address of the unnamed physicians and healthcare providers.
The Court grants the motion. (See Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1418 [“the transformation from treating physician to expert does not occur unless the treating physician is identified by name and address in the proponent's designation, and it is not enough that a plaintiff has ‘designated’ as experts ‘all past or present examining and/or treating physicians’ ”].)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for a protective order. The Court strikes the phrase “all various treating physicians and healthcare providers . . . including but not limited to” from Plaintiff Gilberto Avendano’s July 25, 2023 Designation of Expert Witness and grants Plaintiff five court days to file an amended Designation of Experts omitting the stricken language.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.