The Onglyza Product Cases, A165387 decided on April 19, 2023 by the First District Court of Appeal is a case to be aware of.
The case involved 13 California state cases coordinated under a Judicial Council Coordination proceeding (JCCP) regarding the drug of Onglyza and Kombiglyze which contained the active ingredient saxagliptin a medicine for
Many lawyers use the terms “supplemental expert” and “rebuttal expert” interchangeably, but, according to the Discovery Act, they are very different. A supplemental expert is one that was disclosed twenty days after experts have been disclosed and is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.280 and is allowed to provide expert testimony. However, a rebuttal expert’s testimony is limited to rebutting or contradicting an opponent’s expert’s “foundational facts” that form the basis of their opinion.
Continue Reading Rebuttal Expert Witnesses—Do you know how to use them?
If a party failed to serve their expert disclosure statement on time, they may bring a motion pursuant to C.C.P §2034.710 for an order to submit a tardy expert witness list. This section titled Power of Court to Allow Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness states:
(a) On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date.
(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be made a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section § 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.
(c) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
Continue Reading So, You Forgot to Serve Your Expert Disclosure – Now What?
In Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1067, the Court of Appeal stated that where counsel retains an expert consultant with confidential information concerning the opponent’s case, there is a rebuttable presumption that the expert shared that confidential information with the counsel that retained him or her, which requires disqualification. See Evid Code §606 on the effect of a presumption. To prevent disqualification, the presumption must be rebutted with an affirmative evidentiary showing that no confidential materials were transmitted. This showing has been met by including the writings that were transmitted and what topics were discussed verbally, which would demonstrate that the offending material was not transmitted. However, be mindful that it is not just the precise materials, but also the benefit of the confidential materials that must be rebutted:
Continue Reading The Other Side Retained My Consultant – Should They Be Disqualified?