What is a Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

Recent Rulings on Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

PEDRO ROA V. MASARU YAMADA

Such a disclosure does not comply with the letter or spirit of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034 and the court has discretion to exclude expert testimony by the improperly-designated doctors. (See Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1423 [unspecific list not statutorily satisfactory].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

WALTER COLLINS VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

Proc., § 2034.300.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

EMANUEL AFRAHMIAN VS KOUSHA BEROKIM

Consequently, a motion to exclude expert testimony is premature given the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2034.610 & 2034.710. Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendant from offering expert witness testimony is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

VENEGAS VS. KUPU

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony filed by Defendant Kalisitiane Langi Kupu OFF CALENDAR. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FILED 07/15/2020. Future Hearings: No future hearings

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

.: 20 The motion in limine of defendant County of Los Angeles (“the County”) to exclude expert testimony of John K. Thompson came on regularly for hearing at the above-referenced date, time and place before the undersigned. Lamb & Kawakami, by Michael K. Slattery, appeared on behalf of the County. Wade E. Norwood appeared on behalf of plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount”).

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2020

GAMO VS. J STAR AUTO GROUP, INC

Proc. § 2034.300.) On this point, the operative inquiry is whether the party’s conduct compromises the purposes of the discovery statutes. (Staub v. Kiley (2014) Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1447.) It must appear the objecting party “made a complete and timely compliance” with the section 2034.260 exchange requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300; See also Staub v. Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1445-1446.) Here, Plaintiff does not argue Defendants failed to timely designate.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

KATHY PAULINE MORRIS VS HAKOB BABAJANYAN ET AL

Proc., § 2034.300, subd. (d).) Defendants concede that they took Gross’s deposition on February 4, 2020. (Declaration of Donavon Sawyer in Support of Status Report, ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants now argue that the Court should preclude Gross’s testimony on other grounds. The Court cannot consider these arguments, as Defendants raised them for the first time in their February 6, 2019 filing rather than a noticed motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

WALLACE V. ORANGE COUNTY GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300 provides, in part, “Except as provided in Section 2034.310 . . . on objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: [¶] . . . (d) Make that expert available for deposition . . . .”

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

SYDNEY BERARD-MOORE V. DIGNITY HEALTH, ET AL.

A court is not required to exclude expert testimony in a medical malpractice action solely because the expert pursued a different specialty than that which is relevant to the applicable standard of care. (Brown v. Colm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 639, 645–46, citing Mirich v. Balsinger (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 103, 115 [otolaryngologist qualified to testify about plastic surgery].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

VALERIE MCCLURE VS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ET AL

Issue No.1: Standing California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.300 requires that a party who wishes to exclude expert opinion testimony must have “made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

GREGG ROCKY BROOKS VS JOHN C DEPP ET AL

.: BC713123 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER SEALING PORTIONS OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY BY TERRE BRIDGHAM Date: December 30, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 Jury Trial: May 11, 2020 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants John C. Depp, II and Infinitum Nihil The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

GREGG ROCKY BROOKS VS JOHN C DEPP ET AL

of reply to opposition to motion in limine no. 5 to exclude expert testimony by Terre Bridgham.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

DELVIN MANUEL VS EMILY ALICIA GROSPE ET AL

Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.300. Therefore, without seeking leave to amend or augment his witness list under §2034.610, Plaintiff would be precluded from offering the new expert’s testimony whether retained or not retained. 3) To grant Plaintiff’s requested relief, the court must find that Plaintiff would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert, or the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

DARLA M. MAY VS WENDY SUM ET AL.

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert testimony: Thus, under Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or *772 3) speculative.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

THOMPSON VS. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

There is insufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that Reilly should be excluded as an expert based on a violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300. 18 to 21. Sustained. The City’s Objections The City’s objects to the new evidence submitted in reply and requests an opportunity to respond to those documents. The Court does not require additional briefing from the City and given the Court’s ruling on this writ, the reply evidence did not prejudice the City.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

GREGG ROCKY BROOKS VS JOHN C DEPP ET AL

.: BC713123 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY BY TERRE BRIDGHAM Date: November 21, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 Jury Trial: May 11, 2020 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants John C. Depp, II and Infinitum Nihil The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

JOHN BECKHAM ET AL VS NIKO ENTERPRISES LLC ET AL

Proc., § 2034.300.) Discussion Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ expert designations on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to simultaneously exchange designations after Defendants made a proper demand by setting a date to exchange and thereafter provided their designations to Plaintiffs on the exchange date. The background is as follows. The trial was originally set for October 7, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

ARNOLD JOSHUA ESCOBEDO ET AL VS ALI NAVAB

Proc., § 2034.300, subd. (a).) In this case, Plaintiff served an expert designation on June 25, 2019, designating two treating medical providers as experts. (See Declaration of Vivian I. Rivera, Exhibit A.) On the same date, Defendant served an expert designation designating an accident reconstructionist and bio-mechanical engineer, an orthopedic surgeon, and a physical therapist as experts. (See Declaration of Vivian I. Rivera, Exhibit B.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

ANDREA JUAREZ VS. THOMAS ZIEGLER

Proc., § 2034.300.) 10. The record indicates that on May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed Motion in Limine No. 13, wherein she requested that the Court exclude Defendant’s experts, Stephen L.G. Rothman, M.D. (“Rothman”, a radiologist) and Robert Freundlich, M.D.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

HENRY GONZALEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

No. 4 (# 64): To exclude expert testimony at trial from any witnesses not previously designated by Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO as an expert, including laypersons and testimony from non-designated experts in any subject matter – DENY. CACI 223. No. 5 (# 65): To exclude evidence of Plaintiff's character, including his criminal history, allegations of drug abuse, gang or any street gang affiliation, tattoos and or name monikers, and any toxicology report – HEAR.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HENRY GONZALEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

No. 4 (# 64): To exclude expert testimony at trial from any witnesses not previously designated by Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO as an expert, including laypersons and testimony from non-designated experts in any subject matter – DENY. CACI 223. No. 5 (# 65): To exclude evidence of Plaintiff's character, including his criminal history, allegations of drug abuse, gang or any street gang affiliation, tattoos and or name monikers, and any toxicology report – HEAR.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REYNALDO COLLAZOS VS CHARLES LOFGREN

Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.300(d) The court’s file reflects that on 2/22/19, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment, substituting Mary Lofgren as John Doe 1. On 3/27/19, Ms. Lofgren acknowledged receipt of the summons and complaint and related documents. See Notice of Acknowledgement and Receipt filed 4/26/19. Ms. Lofgren recently filed an answer to the complaint. Plaintiff cites the addition of a new Defendant as a reason Dr. Giacobetti’s deposition has not gone forward.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REYNALDO COLLAZOS VS CHARLES LOFGREN

Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.300(d) The court’s file reflects that on 2/22/19, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment, substituting Mary Lofgren as John Doe 1. On 3/27/19, Ms. Lofgren acknowledged receipt of the summons and complaint and related documents. See Notice of Acknowledgement and Receipt filed 4/26/19. Ms. Lofgren has not yet filed an answer to the complaint. Plaintiff cites the addition of a new Defendant as a reason Dr. Giacobetti’s deposition has not gone forward.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TAMERA FAULKNER ET AL VS JOHN REGAN M D

Proc., § 2034.300 Plaintiffs participated in the exchange. Opposition, Ex. A. None of the other factors identified in Section 2034.300 are at issue. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JORDAN GROSSMAN VS JESSICA HERWILL ET AL

CC 14--TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY NOT DISCLOSED AT THEIR DEPOSITIONS The Court intends to follow a modified Kennemur procedure. If a party intends to have an expert witness testify to opinions that witness did not express in his or her deposition, it is the obligation of that party to advise the Court and opposing counsel of this intention before the witness testifies.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.