ALONSO OCON ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Litili LLC to Compel Litili, LLC to Comply with Subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request No. 7: The Court grants the motion to compel with respect to this request in part. The request is overbroad. Litili LLC is ordered to produce documents created by Litili LLC, through its agents and employees, to the extent that copies of such documents have been provided to Dr. Saint Martin. Responsive documents must be produced no later than 2/10/2020.

Requests No. 8, 9 and 11: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to these requests. Requests 8 and 9 seek all agreements between Litili and Dr. Saint Martin for work as an expert for the last 10 years. Request number 11 seeks all invoices for work generated by Dr. Saint Martin for expert work for the last 10 years. Plaintiff argues that these agreements are relevant to bias.

The Court must balance the need for evidence that goes to the credibility or bias of the witness against his or her privacy interests and the privacy interests of third parties. The Court of Appeal has engaged in this balancing with respect to disclosure of financial information from expert witnesses and has concluded that an expert may be compelled to answer general questions calling for estimates of the total amount of compensation received from plaintiff- and defense-side work. See Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 447, 454 (holding that a medical expert may be asked questions directed toward disclosing “how much compensation he derives form defense work”); Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass’n v. Superior Court (200) 84 Cal. App. 4th 691, 700 (directing trial court to enter order compelling expert to provide “a numerical estimate of the amount of income generated from said defense- and plaintiff-related litigation.”) Plaintiff has not shown the need for individual agreements or invoices and the Court is not aware of any decision in which production of documents at that level of detail has been compelled.

Request No. 10: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to this request. This request seeks a list of all cases in which Dr. Saint Martin has testified as an expert for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. Litili has established that no such documents exist.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment Plaintiffs’ Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034 Expert Witness List is GRANTED.

1) Plaintiffs can move to augment their expert witness list by adding the name and address of any expert witness subsequently retained if Plaintiffs engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610

There is no issue with the timeliness of each parties’ designation of experts. Plaintiffs served their designation on 9/3/19. Opposition, Ex. 1. Defendant served its designation on 8/30/19. Id., Ex. 2.

2) To grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief, the court must find that Plaintiffs would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to include this expert as a non-retained expert on safety measures and controls for lane closures -- or that the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620(c).

While Plaintiffs have designated retained experts on design standards and traffic control plans, requirements for and placement of traffic control devices, as well as construction zone safety (Opposition, Ex. 1, Declaration of Alexander Wheeler, ¶ 1), Plaintiffs have established that they could not have determined to include Eric Serrano as a non-retained expert at the time of Plaintiffs’ initial designation given that Defendant did not produce Mr. Serrano for deposition until 12/10/19 after expert witness lists had already been exchanged. Plaintiffs did not previously know the substance of his testimony and his qualifications to render any opinions. Declaration of Jonathan Douglass, ¶ 4.

3) The court has discretion to grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list after considering the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.610 (a), (b).

Defendant has not established that it has relied on the Plaintiffs’ expert witness designation to such an extent that it will suffer prejudice in maintaining its action or defense on the merits. Defendant argues a number of things -- that Mr. Serrano is not qualified to render an expert opinion, and therefore, his testimony is inadmissible; his testimony adds nothing to the case; his testimony is more prejudicial than probative; and the testimony is duplicative and cumulative. Motion 2:3-18.

These arguments are irrelevant to the motion. They are properly addressed to the trial court by way of motion in limine.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al. BC677779

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Three is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

Before a hearing may be held on a motion to compel further response to written discovery, the moving party must seek an Informal Discovery Conference with the court. Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/18. The court’s file does not indicate that the Plaintiff requested or that the parties participated in an IDC prior to the hearing date. The Court thus declines to hear the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 2

Ocon v. City of Santa Clara et al.

Plaintiffs’ Three Motions to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set Three; and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three is CONTINUED to January 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to the Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/2018, the “parties must participate in an [informal discovery conference] before a motion to compel further responses to discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.” Id. ¶13. “If parties do not stipulate to extend the deadlines, the moving party may file the motion to avoid it being deemed untimely. However, the IDC must take place before the motion is heard . . . .” Here, the Court file does not reflect that an IDC was ever held, and the moving party has not submitted a declaration establishing that the opposing party failed or refused to participate in an IDC. The Court continues the motion so that an IDC may be held before the motion is heard. The moving party is to schedule an IDC forthwith, and, if there are no available dates for an IDC prior to the new hearing date, the moving party is to continue the hearing to a date after the IDC.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.