California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

California flag on globe

The case underscores the idea underlying California’s Discovery Act, that discovery in California is intended to discourage trials by ambush.

August 6, 2019
Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog

Years ago I recommended to a client that we hire a construction defect expert in a case. The client, a thrifty fellow, responded, “But I thought you were the construction expert. Why do I need to hire another expert? A fair question and one that caught me flat footed.

Whether I’m an “expert” or not can be debated, but I explained to the client that while I was an attorney whose practice focused on construction law, I was not someone who he would want to take the stand and testify about the engineering design and seismic stability of pilings. For that, he needed an expert.

In construction litigation it’s not uncommon for parties and their attorneys to hire “experts.” There are even special rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for disclosing, supplementing and deposing experts, which basically provide as follows:

1. Demand for Exchange of Expert Information: After the court sets a trial date in a case, any party may demand that each party exchange information concerning the experts they intend to have testify at trial;

Mr. Murai may be contacted at


Arrange No Cost Consultation

Subscribe to Construction Defect Journal

Construction Defect Journal Archives - Recent CD News for Construction Claims Professionals


Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions


Copyright 2020 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved