Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV44468, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44468    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

JUAN CARLOS FLORES, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

PETER PAUL BORJA, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 20STCV44468 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 31, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Peter Paul Borja (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. Trial is currently set for July 24, 2024. 

Plaintiff now moves to augment its expert designation to include Stepan Kasimian, M.D. (“Dr. Kasimian”) as a retained expert witness. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to include Shayan Ur Rahman, M.D. (“Dr. Rahman”) and Yevgeniy Freyvert, M.D. (“Dr. Freyvert”) as non-retained experts.  

Any opposition was due on or before May 17, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.  

  

II. MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST  

  1. Legal Standard 

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.)   

 

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).)  

 

  1. Discussion 

The parties exchanged their designation of expert witnesses on March 28, 2023, in which Defendant designated Steven Nagelberg, M.D. as his orthopedic expert witness. Plaintiff avers his initial attorney failed to supplement Plaintiff’s retained expert in orthopedic surgery and failed to designate the non-retained treating surgeons from Kaiser who performed Plaintiff’s spine surgery. Plaintiff asserts the augmentation will not prejudice Defendant because the experts are available to be deposed at any time, discovery is open until June 24, 2024 to provide Defendant sufficient time to take the depositions of the experts, and Defendant had not relied on the initial expert list because none of the experts’ depositions have occurred. 

Defendant does not oppose the motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (CRC, Rule 8.54(c).) 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to augment his expert witness list is GRANTED. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 30th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court