Fairfax

Fairfax v. Lords

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 1019·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 561·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4593·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 850·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3204
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 2006G034533California3,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

In this case, we conclude that “simultaneous” means “occurring at the same time.” We recognize the folks at Merriam Webster reached that same conclusion some time ago, but in light of what occurred in this case, it apparently bears repeating.

Vender Fairfax appeals from an adverse judgment in his lawsuit for medical malpractice against Deric Lords, D.P.M. He argues the court erred in allowing Lords to unilaterally delay his designation of retained expert witnesses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure former section 2034 (former section 2034) until 20 days after Fairfax had designated his own. He also contends the court erred in allowing Lords to designate, as one of his belated experts, a doctor who had previously consulted with Fairfax about the same injury at issue here, in connection with a prior case.

We agree with the first contention, and because we conclude that Lords’s belated designation of retained experts should be stricken, we need not reach the second. Former section 2034 required a “simultaneous” exchange of information, in which each side must either identify any expert witnesses it expects to call at trial, or state that it does not intend to rely upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.