Sacramento Car Accident Defendant Tries To Limit Victim’s Medical Experts, Part 2 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

What is particularly egregious about XYZ ‘s failure to timely file and serve this motion is that XYZ attempted to have similar motion heard, ex parte, on December 4, XYZ withdrew the motion when its motion to continue the trial date was granted. Still, it is not as though this defendant, whose counsel swore that the proposed motion was attached to a declaration filed on March 25, was prompted by surprise or urgency in drafting this motion.

XYZ had a draft of the motion ready to file on December 4, 2009, and proposed version to attach to a declaration on March 25, yet the defendant declined to file and serve the motion until after the statutory deadline.

XYZ ‘s motion raises no minor issue. The defendant seeks to exclude the entirety of certain of the plaintiffs experts’ testimony before any party has even heard the substance of the testimony. XYZ claims excessive consumption of time (a claim which is proved false herein), yet the same defendant could not manage to provide the court and opposing counsel with adequate notice.

The court should deny XYZ ‘s motion for failure to comply with C.C.P. §1005(b) if not also for the substantive reasons stated below.

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


This is a complex products liability case involving the violent and unexpected failure of an automotive tire. Plaintiff Brown, who was the owner and driver of the subject vehicle contends that defendant XYZ , the parent company of the manufacturer of the tire, is strictly liable, as well as liable due to its own negligence, for the injuries suffered by Dr. Brown.

In summary, Dr. Brown contends that the subject tire failed unexpectedly due to age related factors. Dr. Brown contends that defendant XYZ knew either when it sold the tire or discovered while the tire was still in use, that the tire had a limited life span. XYZ knew that the subject tire would likely fail due to age before the useful life of the tire expired, but failed to provide Dr. Brown with any warning or notice of the dangerous nature of its product This theory of liability raises important issues related to tire degradation, accident reconstruction, notice and marketing, and other scientific issues that are beyond the scope of knowledge of the lay person. (See Part 3 of 5.)

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

Contact Information