PRIETO VS SCOTT

requirements in her supplemental designation under CCP § 2034.300, and therefore, the entire supplemental expert designation should be stricken or grant a protective order that no economist expert be allowed at trial.

CCP § 2034.260 provides, in relevant part: “(a) All parties who have appeared in the action shall exchange information concerning expert witnesses in writing . . . . (b) The exchange of expert witness information shall include . . . [a] list setting forth the name and address of a person whose expert opinion that party expects to offer in evidence at the trial. (c) If a witness on the list is an expert . . ., the exchange shall also include or be accompanied by an expert witness declaration . . . contain[ing] 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.

Under CCP § 2034.300, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: (a) List that witness as an expert . . . . (b) Submit an expert witness declaration. (c) Produce reports and writings of expert witnesses . . . . (d) Make that expert available for a deposition . . . .” (CCP § 2034.300.)

Here, Plaintiff’s supplemental expert designation complies with CCP § 2034.260(b), (c)(2), and (c)(3). Plaintiff identifies both Mr. Klinkenberg and Mr. Lanning, as Economists at Formuzis, Hunt & Lanning Inc., and provides the address of the firm. (Torsney Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) It states that Mr. Klinkenberg and Mr. Lanning will testify regarding present value and its application to Plaintiff’s future economic losses and damages, and confirms that both experts have agreed to testify at trial. (Id.) This sufficiently sets forth the general substance of the experts’ testimony and their agreement to testify, as required by section 2034.260(c)(2) and (3).

Although the declaration does not include a detailed narrative statement of qualifications beyond identifying the experts as “economists” and attaching their curricula vitae (“CV”), such deficiency is not fatal. (Id.) To the extent Defendant contends the CVs are “too cryptic,” such deficiencies do not constitute “unreasonable” noncompliance warranting exclusion under section 2034.300. (See Du-All Safety, LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 485, 499 [reversing the trial court’s “implicit conclusion that plaintiffs behaved so unreasonably as to warrant exclusion of their experts’ opinion testimony”]; Staub v.

Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1445–46 [noting that failure to comply with expert designation requirements can have “drastic consequences,” “plaintiffs cannot be said to have unreasonably failed to comply with defendants’ expert witness demand, so as to justify excluding plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony”].)

Motion in Limine #1 to Preclude Plaintiff’s Duplicative and Cumulative Experts DENIED

Motion to Strike Duplicative Experts Designation by Plaintiff or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order DENIED

Jury Trial for 10.23.26 confirmed.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2500145 PRIETO VS SCOTT HEARING RE: EQUITABLE CLAIMS

Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, hearing was continued to 6.12.26.