Case Number: BC603149 Hearing Date: January 17, 2018 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Christina Segura

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants PIH Health Hospital-Whittier and Elina Kari, M.D.

Motion for Order to Strike and/or Limit Defense Experts

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2015, plaintiff Christina Segura filed a complaint against defendants Elina Kari, M.D. and PIH Health aka PIH Healthcare Solutions aka PIH Health Hospital for medical malpractice.

Trial is set for February 21, 2018.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests an order imposing an evidentiary sanction to strike each defendant’s expert designation or, alternatively, to limit the number of expert witnesses to be called by defendants.

Plaintiff contends that on December 14, 2017 defendant Dr. Kari identified 14 separately retained experts, including nine separate medical doctors that have generally been designated to testify as to “standard of care, liability, causation, and damages.” Plaintiff also contends that PIH has designated these “cumulative and duplicative experts.” Plaintiff argues that they have all been designated to testify on the same topics. Plaintiff argues that defendants did not comply with CCP §2034.260(c)(2) because “standard of care, liability, causation, and damages” is not a brief narrative statement of the general substance of the testimony that the expert is expected to give; rather it is ambiguous and conclusory, rendering it impossible for plaintiff to determine if a deposition is appropriate and to prepare for that deposition. Plaintiff argues that the designation is inadequate and thus tantamount to no designation at all.

In opposition, defendants contend that defendants have de-designated three of their experts from testifying to standard of care. Defendants also de-designated four more experts. Of the original 13 retained experts, only nine remain. Plaintiff has introduced several theories of liability against multiple defendants and alleged several injuries caused by defendants’ actions. Defendants have designated experts to address each of plaintiff’s allegations. As to whether the experts are cumulative or duplicative is premature.

Under CCP §2034.260(c), “If a witness on the list is an expert as described in subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210, the exchange shall also include or be accompanied by an expert witness declaration signed only by the attorney for the party designating the expert, or by that party if that party has no attorney. This declaration shall be under penalty of perjury and shall contain all of the following:

(1) A brief narrative statement of the qualifications of each expert.

(2) A brief narrative statement of the general substance of the testimony that the expert is expected to give.

(3) A representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the trial.

(4) A representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including an opinion and its basis, that the expert is expected to give at trial.

(5) A statement of the expert’s hourly and daily fee for providing deposition testimony and for consulting with the retaining attorney.”

As to 2034.260(c)(2), “In our view, this means the party must disclose either in his witness exchange list or at his expert’s deposition, if the expert is asked, the substance of the facts and the opinions which the expert will testify to at trial. Only by such a disclosure will the opposing party have reasonable notice of the specific areas of investigation by the expert, the opinions he has reached and the reasons supporting the opinions, to the end the opposing party can prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal of the expert’s testimony.” Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 907, 919. “Even rather general descriptions of the expert’s proposed testimony may be held sufficient. E.g., ‘medical care and prognosis of plaintiff’s physical condition.’ [See Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d 1012, 1040-1041 . . . (decided under former statute with identical language)].” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:1671.

The court finds that any ruling as to whether to strike or limit defendants’ expert witnesses is premature. Plaintiff has not shown under CCP §2034.300 that defendants have unreasonably failed to do any of items listed at (a) through (d).

The motion is therefore DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court