Sacramento Physician’s Negligence Causes Child’s Birth Injuries, Part 5 of 5

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

All of defendant’s experts have reviewed the videotapes they complain of in their Motion in Limine. Not only have the experts reviewed and looked at the videotapes, but defense counsel’s own experts have stated under oath that these tapes form the basis, in part, of their own opinions regarding the nature of injury and prognosis of this child. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of this Motion in Limine has the defense ever requested in any way to depose or question Dr. Smith or Cynthia Lee. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of defendant’s Motion in Limine has defense counsel expressed a desire to supplemently designate their own experts in these particular areas. Consequently, it is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst, for them to state in their Motion: Therefore, Dr. Johnson was unable to depose them to assess whether they are qualified or to assess what was done during the testing. Further, because these alleged experts were not designated as such, Dr. Johnson was unable to supplemently designate his own experts in this area.

As stated previously, the defense has known for over a year regarding the reliance upon these reports by plaintiffs experts. If any side is engaged in gamesmanship, it is the defense who waits until the last moment to make these spurious allegations.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, the defense is attempting to pick and choose what tests and studies experts may rely on and may be admitted into evidence. Specifically, Elaine Gold of The Early Start Program performed two written tests and evaluations. Ms. Gold has not been listed as a retained or even as a non-retained expert by the defense. Notwithstanding same, defense experts have testified that they in part have relied upon testing done by Ms. Gold and that the tests results shown by Ms. Gold have substantiated their opinions. It is clear that defense counsel wishes to have his cake and eat it too.


Plaintiff requests that the court deny defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 10.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information