McDonald v. Zargaryan et al. (Dec. 22, 2025, B329565) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ [2025 WL 3704598]
Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries sustained when defendant drove his motorcycle at “walking speed” into plaintiff. One week before trial, plaintiff visited a new physician who was not on the parties’ list of experts. The new physician recommended spine surgery, which, until then, had never been proposed and was not an issue in the case. Plaintiff did not claim his condition had changed so as to prompt the visit to the new physician, so defendant moved in limine to exclude the new physician as an expert witness. The trial court ruled the new physician could testify, and the jury returned a nearly $14 million award for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a new medical expert to testify when the expert was presented just a week before trial, absent timely disclosure or reasonable justification for the delay. The court explained that plaintiff failed to file a mandatory motion seeking leave of court to augment his expert witness list, and the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to exclude the new physician as an expert witness. The court held that it is particularly important to avoid surprises at trial involving expert witness testimony. “[N]ew and unexpected testimony” can impede trial preparation and thwart timely disclosure rules. The court acknowledged that experts are powerful witnesses that require trial counsel to thoroughly prepare for effective cross-examination.
