Opinion
No. 2023-CC-00495
06-21-2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PER CURIAM
In response to a fourth supplemental and amended petition, defendant filed a motion for leave to add a new expert, Dr. Pamela McCauley. Defendant argued this testimony was necessary because plaintiffs’ fourth supplemental and amended petition added new claims and new causes of action that needed to be addressed. Initially, the trial court granted defendant's motion for leave to add Dr. McCauley as an expert. However, plaintiffs subsequently filed what they referred to as a motion for new trial, in which they argued defendant already had adequate experts to address the allegations of plaintiffs’ fourth amended petition. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and precluded Dr. McCauley from testifying in this matter. The Court of Appeal denied writ.
The trial court's exclusion of the expert witness is based on claims that the opinions of defendant's experts are cumulative. However, no discovery has been taken with respect to the qualifications and scope of opinions of this expert. Under these circumstances, we find it premature for the trial court to strike the expert's opinion as redundant. We reverse the trial court's ruling, which precluded Dr. McCauley from testifying in this matter, and we remand the matter to the trial court for additional discovery to determine the expert's qualifications and the scope of her opinions. REVERSED AND REMANDED.