Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 18STCV01696 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 18STCV01696, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 18STCV01696 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: SEC

MUNROE v. ROVELO, M.D.

CASE NO.: 18STCV01696

HEARING: 07/28/22

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant MILLICENT ROVELO, M.D.’s Motion for Leave to Augment their Expert Designation is DENIED. The request to continue trial must be made in Dept. SE-F.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

Defendant MILLICENT ROVELO, M.D. (“Defendant”) moves for leave to augment her expert witness designation.

The Motion is DENIED. CCP §2034.210 requires a simultaneous exchange of expert witness information. The case of Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1019 is on point. A party may not sit back and await the initial exchange of the other party before designating its own experts in a “supplemental” exchange. Defendant must have known that plaintiff would designate a neurologist who would opine on Plaintiff’s work-life expectancy given the nature of the damages sought in this action.

“The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) 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.” (CCP § 2034.620.)

Plaintiff has relied on Defendant’s list of expert witnesses and will be prejudiced by Defendant’s tardy designation on the eve of trial.