CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Expert Testimony: In General
.........Adequate Notice Required
9 Cards On This Topic:

Trial court may preclude expert from testifying at trial on subject the general substance of which was not previously described in expert witness declaration.

Ds lacked standing to move to exclude Ps' Es from testifying for failure to timely disclose where Ds did not comply with CCP 2034.260 themselves; Ps did not act unreasonably and dismissal was a terminating sanction, eviscerating Ps' case.

Trial ct. had discretion, on objection of D, which made complete but untimely compliance with expert witness exch. reqs., to exclude expert testimony offered by P, who completely and unreasonably failed to comply with same requirements.

Trial court erred prejudicially in allowing D to unilaterally delay his designation of retained expert witnesses until 20 days after P designated his; simultaneous means simultaneous.

As (former) CCP 2034 provides for simultaneous, mutual exchange of experts, not unilateral exchange, court can not adopt conflicting procedure, nor mitigate CCP §437c time constraints by ordering such unilateral exchange of experts.

No expert declaration required for treating physician to testify as expert but physician must be specifically identified, not just as one of all past or present treating physicians.

No abuse of discretion in excluding testimony of Saudi marital expert where parties had no notice and testimony of minimal importance when balanced against state's interest in expediting dependency case.

W's expert's testimony properly excluded where it went beyond opinions expressed during deposition after E said they were the only opinions he held and would express at trial.

H's expert could testify re pension plan where there was broad enough expert witness declaration and E not asked at depo to state that his opinions at trial would be limited to those at depo.