MOTION TO STRIKE
Matter on calendar for Thursday, July 02, 2026, Line 6, DEFENDANT BRICK AND TIMBER, INC., SF MULTIFAMILY IV PROPERTY OWNER LLC's MOTION TO STRIKE.
Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff Steve Lakovits's supplemental designation of expert Eric H. Sussman is denied. Lakovits makes an adequate showing that the testimony that Sussman can provide is responsive to the testimony anticipated by defendant's expert Walter Ricci, and the supplemental designation is the kind contemplated by the appellate court's discussion of the legitimate reasons why a party might supplement its expert designation in Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 485, at pages 497-498.
Defendant also makes the technical argument that only the vehicle of augmentation is available, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034.610, and not supplementation, because a party may only designate a supplemental expert about a subject where the party "has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2034.280, subd. (a).) Although the value of future damages is a broad common topic shared by the experts, and there is overlap in the Edrington designation concerning the value of plaintiff's damages and the Sussman designation (see Nguyen Decl., Exs.
A & B), the court concludes that upon examination of both designations as a whole, taking a practical perspective, they do not concern a subject where Lakovits previously retained an expert on that subject. Rather, Sussman's anticipated testimony is focused on rent differential issues, a topic not included in Lakovits' initial designation. In addition, the court finds no prejudice in light of the continued trial date.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA). | |