HILARY MCKEAN VS. JOHN DOE

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Line 2, PLAINTIFF HILARY MCKEAN's Motion For Protective Order To Reduce The List Of Defendants' Retained Expert Witnesses For Trial.

Plaintiff Hilary McKean's motion for a protective order to reduce the list of defendants' retained expert witnesses for trial is denied. Defendant Mark Hanson has disclosed four expert witnesses who are at issue on this motion, Kim Norman, M.D.; Mitchell Eisen, Ph.D.; Jennifer Tomasic, MSc Psych; and Paul Fitzgerald, M.D. McKean contends their testimony substantially overlaps, all of the testimony each will give could be presented by the doctor who conducted the examination of McKean, and Hanson therefore should be restricted to one expert.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034.250, provides in relevant part: "(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. The protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: ... "(6) That a party or a side reduce the list of employed or retained experts designated by that party or side under subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210."

The court has reviewed Hanson's expert designations and concludes that they are not unduly cumulative. While they are all on topics that relate in some way to the reliability of McKean's recollections, they offer different opinions. Nor is the court persuaded by McKean's argument that, to the extent the opinions are different, they could all be offered by one mental health expert that Hanson could call in lieu of several. The experts have different backgrounds and areas of focus, which may bear on the weight a jury gives their testimony. "Identical or virtually identical evidence may not be cumulative if there is significance to the evidentiary weight to be given." (Monroy v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 248, 267.) The court concludes no protective order is warranted. This order is without prejudice to the trial court's in limine rulings.

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.