Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00020831-CU-PN-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Professional Negligence Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00020831-CU-PN-CTL MCCRADY VS ARTHUR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Douglas McCrady's motion for leave to submit late expert designation is DENIED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.720, the court shall grant leave to submit tardy expert witness information only if, among other requirements, the moving party did all of the following: - Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

- Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

- Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy all three of these conditions. First, the court find's Plaintiff's counsel's representations regarding mistake or excusable neglect to be disingenuous at best. The original expert designation date set by the court was May 12, 2023, (ROA #19), and Plaintiff's counsel agreed on that date to a '20 day extension for experts,' suggesting he, or at least someone with responsibility at his office, knew both the original date and the extension date. (Bloch Dec., Ex. H.) Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel is an experienced attorney who is, or should be, familiar with the San Diego Local Rules and the convention to dispense with the demand requirement.

Second, even if the court were to credit Plaintiff's counsel's representation of mistake or excusable neglect, he did not move promptly to submit the information after 'learning' of the mistake. Plaintiff's counsel attests that he started researching potential experts in June 2023 after receiving Defendant's expert information, and struggled to find a suitable expert. But Plaintiff's counsel knew or should have known when he filed this case in June 2022 that he would need expert testimony to prove Plaintiff's claims; in no way was this need for expert testimony contingent on first receiving expert information from Defendant. Indeed, the court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on July 7, 2023 in large part due to the absence of expert testimony on both sides. Despite knowing from the outset of the case of the need for expert testimony and being strongly reminded of this need when Defendant designated her expert and the court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff waited another three months before bringing this motion for relief or even raising the issue, and still has not promptly served a copy of the proposed expert witness information on Defendant.

In sum, whether as part of a strategic decision or due to inexcusable neglect, Plaintiff failed to timely designate an expert and has not satisfied the necessary conditions to be granted leave to submit tardy expert witness information.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3045898  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MCCRADY VS ARTHUR [IMAGED]  37-2022-00020831-CU-PN-CTL Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3045898  11