Tire Blow-Out Causes Sacramento Auto Accident, Part 4 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.)

None of the expert witnesses listed above has been deposed by the defendant, despite the fact that this same defendant sought a continuance of the December 2009 trial in order to have more time to conduct expert discovery. XYZ contends, essentially, that either Dr Bakstrom or Dr. Hall must go, to save time and money, without actually having heard a word from either expert. Plaintiff Brown contends that both Dr. Bakstrom and Dr. Hall are essential to her case against the formidable, well financed, and experienced corporate defendant (as well a the other two defendants – Valley Chevrolet and The Auto Center).

It is worth remembering that XYZ designed, manufactured, distributed, and marketed the subject tire. Much of the discovery and investigation associated with its defense was incidental to its primary business – making, marketing, and selling tires. Dr. Brown, a retired dentist, has had to start from scratch, using experts who have not had the benefit of unlimited access to XYZ ‘s wealth of resources.

Dr. Brown needs both Dr. Hall and Dr. Bakstrom. Even if there were some overlap subject matter, both of these experts would still need to be deposed because there are areas o their testimony which do not overlap at all (i.e. accident reconstruction, chemical composition and decomposition). Since both experts are necessary and would still testify, even if any hypothetical overlap were excluded at trial, plaintiff assumes that the defendants would take the experts’ depositions.

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

The real question then becomes whether this court should issue an order, before hearing word from either expert, limiting their opinions and deposition testimony. The defendant has no cited a single case which supports such an inefficient and prejudicial ruling. Since the experts are likely to be deposed regardless of any limiting order, the value of any such limiting order would be minimal and insubstantial. If, after deposition, there is evidence of some truly cumulative evidence in the testimony or Drs. Hall and Bakstrom, the court can adequately address the issue in a motion in limine. (See Part 5 of 5.)

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

Contact Information