Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2019-00048104-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2019-00048104-CU-BC-CTL BOWERMAN VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, 01/17/2024

Plaintiff's Motion to Augment Expert Witness List (ROA 291) is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks to augment her expert witness list to add Anthony Micale, an engineer, as a retained expert on her behalf.

As a preliminary matter, the motion is untimely because it was not brought in sufficient time to permit a deposition of Micale to be deposed before the discovery cut-off. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.710(b).) Discovery has been closed in this case for many months. Further, Plaintiff did not identify any 'exceptional circumstances' that might justify the court's consideration of the motion after the discovery cut-off has passed.

Further, even if the motion had been timely, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated she is entitled to relief. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.620.) There is evidence Defendant relied on Plaintiff's designation of one expert, Darrell Blasjo, because Defendant withdrew one of its experts, Robert Landis, after receiving Plaintiff's designation. (Guillot Decl. ¶ 8.) Both experts have been deposed, and Defendant's expert has therefore long since rendered under oath the opinions he will offer at trial. More fundamentally, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the failure to designate Micale before now was the result of inadvertence or excusable neglect, as Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff stated that her counsel recently tried another case with Defendant's counsel with 'extremely similar facts' in which 'it became clear that Toyota's main defense was the lack of diagnostic trouble codes reflecting the defects Plaintiff was experiencing,' Plaintiff offers no explanation, however, of why, with all available discovery tools accessible to her for many years, she did not sufficiently understand Defendant's defenses or Defendant's expert's testimony in this case prior to the trial of a completely different case.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080876  8