Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center
226 Cal. App. 4th 401
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Cottini sues Enloe Medical Center for medical negligence and neglect of a dependent adult; trial court limited liability issues to dependent‑adult claim after jury verdict; discovery disputes arose regarding expert discovery under CCP §2034; Enloe served a timely demand for exchange of expert witnesses on 6/3/2009 and disclosed late; Cottini initially refused to disclose due to claimed conflict of interest involving defense counsel; discovery cutoff occurred in 8/2009 with Cottini still noncompliant; after remittitur on appeal, Cottini disclosed experts in 1/2011 and moved to reopen discovery and admit late disclosures; trial court denied, excluding late-disclosed experts; verdict only addressed the dependent‑adult neglect claim, which Enloe won; the appellate court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of late-disclosed experts under 2034.300 | Cottini argued exceptional circumstances warrant late disclosure. | Enloe argued late disclosure was egregious and prejudicial; exclusion appropriate. | Discretionary, not automatic; no abuse of discretion to exclude. |
| Denial of motion to reopen discovery | Reopening discovery would cure prejudice from late disclosures. | Late disclosure was willful; reopening would cause delay. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Standing to object to late expert testimony | Enloe should be allowed to object despite late disclosure. | Lack of timely mutual discovery precludes standing. | Court had inherent power to exclude and no standing requirement foreclosed that remedy. |
| Instructional error on causation based on common knowledge | Instruction biased by limiting causation evidence. | No reversible error; causation instruction harmless. | Harmless error; verdict supported by neglect claim. |
| Validity of verdict given expert-discovery issues | Late-disclosed experts should have been admissible; prejudice minimal. | Exclusion preserved fairness given discovery violations. | Affirmed judgment; no reversible error in overall outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Hills Hospital v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.3d 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (late disclosure not automatic standing to compel exclusion; inherent power to control discovery)
- Bonds v. Roy, 20 Cal.4th 140 (Cal. 1999) (late expert disclosure allowed only to avoid miscarriage of justice with safeguards)
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005) (reconsideration procedures; due process in trial rulings)
- New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (context on inspection/evidence sanctions and discovery limits)
- Castaline v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (trial court authority to exclude to ensure fair trial; timeliness context)
- Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., 170 Cal.App.4th 936 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory framework for expert discovery; purpose of discovery statutes)
- Zellerino v. Brown, 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (standing/impact of discovery timing on evidence)