It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
Indeed, in Mayer v. Cooper, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 750, 754, a case cited with approval in Kennemur, the Court stated as follows, concerning the scope of deposition testimony:
The party who is examined is required to answer fairly all proper questions which are put to him but he is under no obligation to volunteer information or to disclose relevant material matters which are not asked for.
The Court in Kennemur continued, “the principles articulated in Mayer are sound. The only difference when in the expert arena is that the expert must reveal the general substance of his testimony (as opposed to every possible specific opinion).” [Kennemur, Id., at 919].
Defendants’ Instant Motion in Limine is Improper, and Seeks to have the Court Rule in a Factual Vacuum
California law is clear that unsupported Motions in Limine are improper [Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 672].
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Yet, by this instant motion, Defendants have done precisely that: Defendants fail to present any facts whatsoever I regarding any specific expert testimony beyond the parameters covered in deposition sought to be excluded.
And despite this lack of foundation, Defendants expect this Court to prematurely issue a blanket ruling thereon. (See Part 4 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.