Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV31771, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV31771, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31771 Hearing Date: January 2, 2025 Dept: 29

Collazo v. City of Los Angeles
21STCV31771
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Serve Late Designation of Expert Witnesses

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 27, 2021, Carmen Collazo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and public employee liability for wrongful acts arising out of trip and fall occurring on March 1, 2021.

On December 29, 2021, City filed an answer and cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 25.

On November 26, 2024, City filed this motion for leave to file a late designation of experts. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 11, and City filed a reply on December 24.

Legal Standard

The court may permit tardy submission of expert witness lists and information if the following conditions are satisfied:¿

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a 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.¿

(1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.¿

(2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.¿

(3) 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.¿

(d) The order 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.¿

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.720.)¿ The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.710, subd. (c).)¿¿¿

Discussion

City moves for leave to file a late designation of expert witness. City had served a demand for the exchange of witness information that required the mutual exchange to occur by February 29, 2024. (Smith Decl., ¶ 2.) Due to a variety of circumstances set forth in the moving and reply papers, however, City did not serve its designation until November 22, 2024. (Id., ¶ 4; Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 2-9; Miera Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)

There have been several trial dates in this matter. On filing, the Court assigned a trial date of February 24, 2023. On the stipulation of the parties in December 2022, the Court continued the trial date to April 18, 2024. On the stipulation of the parties in March 2024, the Court continued the trial date to December 10, 2024. On City’s ex parte application presented on November 27, 2024, the Court continued the trial date to February 3, 2025.

The Court begins by taking into account the extent to which Plaintiff has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.720, subd. (a).) The Court finds that there has been such reliance, but its extent is limited, as the parties agreed in March to continue trial to December, and, at least as far as the Court can tell from the parties’ submissions, there was little activity in this case for most of the period from March through mid November 2024.

The Court next considers any prejudice to Plaintiff. (Id., subd. (b).) The Court finds, on this record, that there is no unfair prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing the tardy designation.

The Court finds that City did not timely serve its expert designation as a result of its counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Id., subd. (c)(1).) This was largely due to (1) the departure of the prior handling attorney from the City Attorney’s office in November 2023; and (2) the service by Plaintiff of her expert designation only on the departed attorney, and not (as requested by City) on the departed attorney’s assistant or supervisor. (See Miera Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)

The Court also finds that City sought leave promptly after learning of its error and promptly thereafter served the proposed designation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.720, subd. (c)(2)-(3); see also Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.)

For good cause shown, and after consideration of all of the facts in the record, all of the arguments from both sides, and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.720, the motion is granted.

The granting of the motion is conditioned upon City making all designated experts available for deposition by no later than January 17, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.720, subd. (d).)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to serve late designation filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, conditioned upon City making all designated experts available for deposition by no later than January 17, 2025.

Moving party is to give notice.¿¿