California Rules of Court, Rule 3.2225(c) provides:
Unless otherwise ordered by the court:
A motion to augment the evidentiary record may be more accurately be argued as a motion to re-open the case-in-chief under Code of Civil Procedure § 607(6) or through the court's inherent authority to control the order of proof under Evidence Code § 320 and Code of Civil Procedure § 128. So long as judgment has not been entered, trial courts have broad discretion to allow additional evidence (Evidence Code § 320, Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(3); Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1052, fn. 7; Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G. A. MacDonald Const. Co. (1998) 71 Cal.App.4th 38, 59; Horning v. Shilberg (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 197, 208.) "Such a procedure . . . does not violate the litigants' rights when adequate notice is given, as here – and may, in fact, be required in order to reach a just result." (Howard Contracting, supra at 59 (citing Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1611-1612.) In Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen, a party moved to reopen its case to offer additional evidence after the court announced its tentative decision in a nonjury trial. The appellate court wrote: "Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen the evidence" (Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, supra at 1052.)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.610 grants the court discretion to grant leave to augment an expert witness designation on motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information.
Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.620 sets forth the requirements for allowing leave to augment or amend. The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(a) Within 20 days after the exchange described in Section 2034.260, any party who engaged in the exchange may submit a supplemental expert witness list containing the name and address of any experts who will express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party to the exchange, if the party supplementing an expert witness list has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.280(a).) While it is true “…a party who has designated an expert to testify on a particular subject may not use a supplemental list to substitute experts.” (Basham v. Babcock (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1723.), Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.280(a) does not always apply given the particular set of circumstances.
Augmentation of the expert witness designation has been allowed where the expert passed away before trial, as well as where the expert’s conclusions and deposition testimony were found to be unexpectedly detrimental to the party offering the expert. (Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81, 89; Dickison v. Howen (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1478.)
"The decision to grant relief from the failure to designate an expert witness is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion." (Dickison v. Howen (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1476.)
There is no express number of days stated as a time limitation for bringing a motion for leave to augment the expert witness list and there is no prohibition against designating another expert witness by court ordered augmentation who will testify on a subject that another expert has already been designated to testify about.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(e) provides: “Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case.”
Dec 16, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Butte County, CA
Nov 30, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Nov 02, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Oct 30, 2020
Butte County, CA
Oct 14, 2020
Butte County, CA
Oct 01, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Sep 28, 2020
Yolo County, CA
Sep 25, 2020
Yolo County, CA
Sep 14, 2020
Butte County, CA
Sep 14, 2020
Butte County, CA
Sep 14, 2020
Butte County, CA
Sep 09, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Sep 02, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Sep 02, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Aug 24, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Aug 24, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Aug 21, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 18, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.