Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV20472, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20472    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 30

MARIA HUERTA MENESES vs SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert designation as untimely and designation of retained experts as duplicative and cumulative is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Discussion

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s expert witness designation, arguing that Plaintiff’s designation of Dr. Richard J. Perrillo, Ph.D. (“Perrillo”) in her Supplemental Expert Designation was untimely.

CCP § 2034.300 requires the trial court to, on objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260, “exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: (a) List that witness as an expert under Section 2034.260. (b) Submit an expert witness declaration. (c) Product reports and writing of expert witnesses under Section 2034.270. (d) Make that expert available for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410).”

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s supplemental expert witness designation was untimely. It is unclear, however, what relief Defendant is seeking as a result of the alleged untimeliness.

If Defendant is seeking to exclude at trial the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, its remedy is not a motion to strike the untimely designation, but rather an objection under CCP section 2034.300. That objection may be raised through a motion in limine or at the time the expert is called at trial. (Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81, 85, 91; 2 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (2022) ¶ 8:1709.)

If Defendant is seeking a pre-trial order relating to expert discovery, its motion is untimely under CCP section 2024.030, which states: “[a]ny party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to a witness identified under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) on or before the 15th day, and to have motions concerning that discovery heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030.) The discovery motion deadline has passed. The same is true for Defendant’s request to limit the experts for being duplicative and/or cumulative.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert designation as untimely and designation of retained experts as duplicative and cumulative is DENIED without prejudice.