Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764

Perry sued Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and Chase Bank for injuries from a fall on Bakewell property leased by Chase.
Chase demanded an exchange of expert information; Perry did not disclose any experts.
Perry supplied two expert declarations anyway; Bakewell moved for summary judgment and objected to the declarations.
Trial court sustained the objection and granted summary judgment for Bakewell.
Perry appealed; Court of Appeal affirmed; issues centered on admissibility of undisclosed experts at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May undisclosed expert opinions be excluded at summary judgment for failure to disclose?	Perry should be able to rely on expert declarations.	Failure to disclose warrants exclusion.	Yes, exclude when objection raised.
Must summary judgment rely only on admissible evidence, even in declarations?	Declarations can support summary judgment evidence.	Declarations must be admissible evidence.	Declarations must set forth admissible evidence.
Does Kennedy/Mann limit apply to today’s rule on admissibility at summary judgment?	Kennedy/Mann control precluded exclusion at summary judgment.	Kennedy/Mann flawed; current rule governs.	Overrule Mann and Kennedy; precedents disapproved.

Mann v. Cracchiolo, 38 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1985) (summary judgment admissibility and relief considerations under discovery rules)
Kennedy v. Modesto City Hospital, 221 Cal.App.3d 575 (Cal. App. 1990) (timeliness of expert designation and impact on summary judgment)
Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 755 (Cal. App. 2010) (admissibility requirement for evidence in summary judgment)
Town v. Davidson, 147 Cal.App.4th 461 (Cal. App. 2007) (admissibility of declarations in summary judgment context)
L.P. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (liberalization of summary judgment procedures and admissible evidence)