Staub v. Kiley CA3, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1437

George Staub was treated for left leg pain in 2008; May-Thurner Syndrome was the underlying cause but not diagnosed or tested by his physician Kiley.
May-Thurner Syndrome was later diagnosed in January 2009 at UC Davis/Regents facilities, after which George requires lifelong anticoagulants with ongoing pain.
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action against Kiley and Regents, asserting lack of informed consent and fraudulent concealment, plus loss of consortium claims.
Kiley moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs’ experts disputed the standard of care, and plaintiffs later amended to add Regents and two novel claims in February 2011.
Defendants served a statutory expert exchange demand on December 6, 2011 with a December 27, 2011 exchange date; plaintiffs’ disclosure was late and included different experts than before (Kang not disclosed initially).
On the trial date, defendants moved in limine to preclude expert testimony; the trial court granted the motion and ultimately nonsuited the action; the judgment was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to move to exclude experts	Staub argues Regents and Kiley lacked standing because defendants failed to timely comply with 2034.260.	Defendants contend they may seek exclusion if opponent unreasonably fails to comply.	Court held defendants lacked standing due to improper exchange timing; reversal unnecessary on this ground.
Reasonableness of plaintiffs' expert disclosure	Plaintiffs claim their late disclosure was reasonable and not prejudicial; extensions under 1013 applied.	Defendants argue late disclosure prejudiced their ability to depose and evaluate experts before trial.	Court held plaintiffs did not unreasonably fail to disclose and abused discretion in excluding experts.
Effect of late disclosure on exclusion	Late disclosures should not automatically preclude expert testimony; depositions offered but declined.	Late exchange plus lack of deposition opportunities justified exclusion.	Trial court abused its discretion by excluding all expert testimony; exclusion not warranted.
Impact of the expert exclusion on the merits	Without experts, claims survive to present causation and informed consent issues.	Exclusion ended plaintiffs' prima facie case for all claims.	Exclusion was not proper; judgment reversed and case reinstated.

Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., 170 Cal.App.4th 936 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discovery rules and reasonable/unreasonable conduct standards; deposition importance)
Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc., 37 Cal.App.4th 1495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (gamesmanship and reasonableness in discovery compliance)
Zellerino v. Brown, 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (dismissal/summary exclusion for comprehensive discovery thwarting)
New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (terminating sanctions and discovery abuse standards)