Sacramento Man Suffers Brain Injury In Car Accident, Part 2 of 4

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/auto accident case and its proceedings.)

In addition, Defendants’ blanket and vague Motion in Limine is inappropriate. They have not set forth or highlighted any specific testimony they seek to exclude. As set forth in Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, Motions in Limine which are declaratory of existing law or would not provide any meaningful guidance for the parties or witnesses are inappropriate. Id. at 670.

Further, the defendants have inaccurately claimed that they have not been provided with Dr. Smith’s raw data. This is simply not the case; Plaintiff’s counsel has confirmed that Defendants’ expert, Dr. White, has been in receipt of said raw data since October 19, 2005. Consequently, as set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion is inappropriate and should be denied.

Defendants are asking the Court to preclude an expert from saying anything that he has not already said in his deposition. This is clearly contrary to the law and would create a possible loophole in the expert discovery statute. A defendant would simply have to ask very few questions and thereby block the expert from testifying about anything other than what he was asked. Surely the Defendants cannot possibly be asking the Court to make such a ruling in such a horrific personal injury case.

This is particularly true in instances, such as here, where Defendants insisted on asking overbroad, catch-all questions such as do you have any other opinions not yet expressed, rather than asking questions about the specific areas about which an expert could reasonably have an opinion in this case. Indeed, in numerous instances in this case, the defense did so over Plaintiff’s objection and despite Plaintiff’s statement that they were welcome to inquire into remaining areas. They should not expect to use that catch-all question in a way to rule out other opinions the expert might present at trial.

To the extent no questions were asked on subjects that Plaintiff’s witnesses could not reasonably be expected to predict, Defendants should not be rewarded for taking an insufficiently thorough deposition. Accordingly, at the very least, the ruling on the motion should be deferred until the time a specific question is asked and the Court can determine whether such information was material to the particular expert’s deposition in this case. (See Part 3 of 4.)

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

Contact Information