Cottini

Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center

Good Law
172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 439·226 Cal. App. 4th 401·2014 WL 2115263
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2014C068915California10,948 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hoch, J.

Plaintiff Patrick Cottini appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Enloe Medical Center (Enloe) after the. jury found one or more Enloe employees provided negligent care to Cottini, a dependent adult, while he was in Enloe’s care or custody, but no causation. The critical question we must resolve is whether or not the trial court, on the objection of a party who has made a complete but untimely compliance with the expert witness exchange requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260, has the authority to exclude from evidence expert testimony offered by a party who has completely and unreasonably failed to comply with these same requirements prior to the discovery cutoff date. We answer this question in the affirmative.

The relevant facts, as set forth in detail below, are the following. Neither Cottini nor Enloe disclosed information concerning its expert trial witnesses by the date specified in Enloe’s demand for exchange of this information. Rather than disclose his experts on this date, Cottini brought a motion to disqualify the law firm of LaFollette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames (LaFollette Johnson) from representing Enloe. Based on Cottini’s…

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.