Legal Opinion

Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC

California Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2017No. S233096PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.

*538 After a trial date is set, a party may demand a simultaneous exchange of expert witness information by all parties. ( *765 Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.210.) Unreasonable failure to respond makes the noncomplying party's expert opinion inadmissible, unless the court grants relief. (§§ 2034.300, 2034.620, 2034.720.) The question here is whether this exclusionary rule applies at the summary judgment stage. The expert witness disclosure statutes provide no answer. However, section 437c, subdivision (d) requires that affidavits and declarations submitted in summary ***2 judgment proceedings "set forth…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Reid v. Google, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Hernandez v. First Student, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. Johnson v. Raytheon Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Fernandez v. Alexander, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. Stokes v. Baker, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API