SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Silvia Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) for damages arising from alleged improper disposal of hypodermic needles in a trash bag, wherein Plaintiff alleges she sustained a needle stick injury with exposure to body fluid while removing a trash bag from a trash bin on Defendant’s property. 

Defendant, at this time, moves to augment its expert designation to include Kaochoy Saechao, M.D. (“Dr. Saechao”) as a non-retained expert witness. Defendant asserts that it did not initially designate Dr. Saechao because Dr. Saechao, the director of medical operations at Concentra at the time, never personally examined Plaintiff. The physician’s assistant Diana Hom, P.A. (“Hom”) at Concentra examined Plaintiff, and thus Defendant identified only Hom. Both Dr. Saechao and Hom’s depositions were noticed, and only Dr. Saechao appeared for his deposition, in which he testified that he has knowledge of Plaintiff’s records and oversaw Hom. Defendant was informed that Hom was retiring and would not appear for her deposition. Therefore, Defendant seeks to add Dr. Saechao to the witness list, arguing that Dr. Saechao’s role as the supervising physician to Plaintiff’s examination at Concentra is necessary to authenticate Concentra’s records and to assist in determining whether Plaintiff ever contracted bloodborne diseases or other injury because of the needle stick incident. Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s counsel was present at Dr. Saechao’s deposition, and thus there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff by the augmentation.  

As of January 5, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  

  

II. Motion to Augment Expert Witness List  

CCP §2034.610 governs motions to augment expert witness lists.   

(a) On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to do either or both of the following: 

(1) Augment that party's expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained. 

(2) Amend that party's expert witness declaration with respect to the general substance of the testimony that an expert previously designated is expected to give. 

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time. 

 

(CCP § 2034.610.)   

 

CCP § 2034.620 states: 

The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses. 

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. 

(c) The court has determined either of the following: 

(1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness. 

(2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: 

(A) Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. 

(B) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action. 

(d) Leave to augment or amend is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion. 

 

Notably, granting or denial of relief in these cases lies within the court's sound discretion, and is subject to appellate review only for abuse of discretion.  (Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, 149.) 

 

The motion must be made at a time that will allow the new expert to be deposed before the cutoff for expert discovery, but the court may for good cause allow augmentation sooner to the trial date.  (CCP § 2034.610(b).)  Before the court may grant a party leave to augment the party's expert disclosure, several conditions must be satisfied. (See CCP § 2034.620.) 

On December 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to shorten time for hearing on the instant motion, in addition to continuing the trial date to March 8, 2024. Here, Defendant avers Dr. Saechao was deposed on November 14, 2023, and that Kaiser informed Defendant at the end of November 2023 that Hom would be retiring at the end of December 2023. On December 5, 2023 and December 6, 2023, defense counsel sent meet and confer email correspondences to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting Plaintiff’s agreement to add Dr. Saechao’s name to Defendant’s designation of expert witness and the parties’ joint witness lists. However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the email. Thus, Defendant filed the instant motion on December 11, 2023.  Defendant avers it is not at fault for failing to include Dr. Saechao’s name when it served its designation of expert witnesses on October 31, 2023, because it was unclear at the time whether Dr. Saechao had involvement with Plaintiff’s examination and treatment at Concentra, and Defendant was unaware of Hom’s retirement. Defendant contends Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the designation of Dr. Saechao as a non-retained expert, because Dr. Saechao has already been deposed in the presence of Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to augment Defendant’s expert witness list to add Dr. Saechao as a non-retained expert is GRANTED.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 18th day of January 2024