Wilmot v. Cal. Department of Transportation CA2/6, B339072

Background

On January 3, 2021, plaintiff Ronald Wilmot was bicycling across the Arroyo Quemado bridge on US‑101 when a motorist (McCurnin) struck him; Wilmot suffered severe injuries.
Wilmot sued McCurnin and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); a jury awarded $3.8 million and apportioned fault 70% to McCurnin and 30% to Caltrans. McCurnin did not appeal.
On the eve of Caltrans’ defense case, Wilmot moved to exclude Caltrans’ lay witnesses for failing to identify them in responses to early requests for admissions and interrogatories; the trial court granted the exclusion as a discovery sanction.
Caltrans’ discovery responses had expressly stated they were preliminary, that investigation was incomplete, and that experts would address many issues; Caltrans did not supplement identification of the later-disclosed lay witnesses prior to trial.
The Court of Appeal held the exclusion was improper because (1) under controlling precedent a party responding to early discovery need not perpetually supplement answers absent willful falsehood, and (2) Caltrans was denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before wholesale exclusion.
The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial; the opinion also discussed evidentiary issues (Howell damages and Evidence Code §1151 remedial measures) for guidance on retrial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly excluded Caltrans’ lay witnesses as a discovery sanction for failing to identify them in preliminary interrogatory/AD responses	Wilmot: Responses identified only experts and thus Caltrans should be barred from presenting undisclosed lay witnesses at trial; exclusion prevents unfair surprise	Caltrans: Responses were clearly preliminary; no duty to continuously supplement absent willful falsehood; exclusion was extreme and prejudicial without proper notice/briefing	Reversed — exclusion improper. Preclusion for failure to supplement requires evidence of willful falsehood; trial court denied Caltrans procedural opportunity and sanctions were prejudicial
Whether Caltrans showed prejudice on appeal from exclusion without making an offer of proof	Wilmot: Caltrans failed to make an offer of proof, so appellate review cannot assess prejudice	Caltrans: Opening statement outlined the substance of excluded testimony; an offer would have been futile once court ruled; opening statement suffices for appellate review	Held for Caltrans — opening statement sufficed to show substance and prejudice; exclusion likely affected outcome, requiring new trial
Admissibility of full billed medical charges under Howell	Wilmot: Full billed amounts were admissible; Caltrans’ remedy was a new‑trial motion under Howell, which Caltrans did not timely make	Caltrans: Howell bars admission of full billed amount where provider accepted less from insurer; admission was error	Not decided on merits because general reversal ordered; court noted Howell governs and preserved issue for retrial
Admissibility of postaccident Caltrans traffic report (subsequent remedial measures) under Evidence Code §1151	Wilmot: Report relevant; contains recommended signage and approvals — admissible	Caltrans: Portions approving corrective measures are subsequent remedial measures and inadmissible to prove negligence	Mixed — factual portions and investigations admissible; references to actual approvals/implemented corrective actions must be redacted as subsequent remedial measures

Key Cases Cited

Biles v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 124 Cal.App.4th 1315 (party responding to early discovery need not indefinitely supplement absent willful falsehood)
Rangel v. Graybar Electric Co., 70 Cal.App.3d 943 (barring witnesses for failure to supplement answers requires strong evidence of willful omission)
Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, 49 Cal.App.4th 659 (wholesale exclusion of evidence as discovery sanction can require reversal)
Fox v. Kramer, 22 Cal.4th 531 (distinguishing investigatory reports from subsequent remedial measures under Evidence Code §1151)
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (limits admissibility of billed medical charges when insurer arrangements reduce amounts actually owed)
Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (standard for prejudicial error and reasonable probability of a different outcome)
Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center, 226 Cal.App.4th 401 (trial court's inherent power to ensure fair trial but does not justify discovery sanctions without proper basis)
Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 1282 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing discovery sanctions)
People v. Whitt, 51 Cal.3d 620 (purpose of offers of proof: let trial court reconsider ruling and allow appellate assessment of prejudice)