California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Pulido v. Cemak Trucking, Inc., D065789 (Cal. App. 2015):
The trial court is required by statute to grant a motion to preclude an expert witness from testifying, upon motion from the opposing party, if the designating party has "unreasonably failed" to list a witness as an expert in an initial exchange. (Code Civ. Proc., 2034.300.) As the court explained in Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025-1026 (Fairfax), when a party reasonably foresees that an expert witness will be designated by the opposing party on a central issue in the case, that party may not simply wait to receive the opposing party's expert witness designation and then file a supplemental designation identifying its own expert witness on that issue. Specifically, in Fairfax, during an initial expert exchange in a medical malpractice case, the defendant designated an expert witness "to address the only real disputed issue in this casei.e., whether [the defendant's] treatment of [the plaintiff] complied with the standard of care."
Page 9
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.