Puritan Insurance v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMS, J.
In this case we consider what discovery sanctions are appropriate where a party’s expert inadvertently loses an object of real evidence crucial to the litigation before an opposing party has had a chance to inspect or test the object. We conclude the party whose expert lost the object is properly precluded from introducing at trial expert testimony based on an examination of the lost object. However, authentic photographs of the object that are available to all parties, and expert testimony based exclusively on an examination of the photographs, should not be excluded from…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Atchley v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- A & M RECORDS, INC. v. HeilmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Kahn v. KahnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
- Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Kuhns v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Newland v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.