§Why CasetextPricing

Ricardo Carrion vs. Antonio Barragan Cobian

Motion - Other

4 Cited authorities

  1. Dickison v. Howen

    220 Cal.App.3d 1471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 33 times
    In Dickison, a medical malpractice case, the trial court allowed the defendant, Dr. Howen, to augment his expert witness list after his own expert, Dr. Smith, testified in deposition that Dr. Howen breached the standard of care.

  2. Section 2034.210 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.210   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses

    After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other's expert trial witnesses to the following extent: (a) Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence

  3. Section 2034.710 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.710   Cited 22 times

    (a) On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be made a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional

  4. Section 2034.720 - Conditions required to be satisfied to grant leave

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.720   Cited 20 times

    The court shall grant leave to submit tardy expert witness information only if all of 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. (c) The court has determined that the moving party did all of the following: (1) Failed to submit