Margarita Franco v. Lawrence Bender

affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(g).)

Analysis

Following a review of the materials submitted in support of this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements for moving to compel a deposition. Horn noticed a deposition for August 5, 2026, and Defendant failed to appear. (Mehta Decl., P. 19.)

Andakyan is the subject of this action. Plaintiff alleges that he caused Plaintiff's injuries by hitting him with his car. Even though Andakyan has admitted liability, his deposition may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding causation or injuries. Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that the deposition is relevant.

Andakyan has not moved for a protective order, nor does he provide any authority showing that the Court can deny a motion to compel a deposition because the deponent lives in a rural area and does not have internet. Therefore, the Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

Margarita Franco v. Lawrence Bender, Case No. 25SMCV02184 Lawrence Bender' s Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff's Supplemental Experts Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff Margarita Franco ("Franco") sued Defendant Lawrence Bender ("Bender") for motor vehicle negligence arising from a car accident on October 17, 2023, on Montana Avenue and 12th Street in Santa Monica, California.

On November 11, 2025, the parties attended an IDC and resolved a dispute regarding supplemental responses to Franco's interrogatories and requests for production.

On July 31, 2026, Bender filed this Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff's Supplemental Retained Experts.

On August 3, 2026, the Court advanced the hearing on that motion to September 10, 2026.

On August 27, 2026, Franco filed Opposition.

On August 31, 2026, Bender filed a reply.

Jury Trial is set for November 30, 2026.

Bender seeks to exclude Franco's supplemental expert's liability testimony beyond the subjects disclosed by Bender's retained expert. Dr. Gardiner is a biomechanical engineer and Dr. Gish is an accident reconstructionist. Bender contends that both experts are case-in-chief experts, not rebuttal experts, because they will testify on central elements of Franco's case-in-chief. Bender also contends that the experts' declarations exceed the scope of the evidence Defendants' expert offers and that their testimony would be impermissibly cumulative.

In opposition, Franco argues that Bender's motion should be denied because she complied with the express language of the expert designation statute and because the additional experts will testify on the same topics as Defendants' expert. Franco argues that any breadth issues should be resolved at the motion in limine phase and that there has been no prejudice to Bender.

In reply, Bender argues that the supplemental expert statute does not allow a party to hold back experts on matters in knew or reasonably should have known would be contested. Bender argues that accident reconstruction and biomechanics were reasonably foreseeable areas of expert testimony, so Franco should not be permitted to add experts late. Bender argues that it would be prejudiced because it will have to schedule and take additional expert depositions before trial.

Governing Law- Expert Disclosure

"Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial."¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2034.210, subd. (b).)¿¿The exchange of expert witness information shall include either of the following: (1) a list setting forth the name and address of a person whose expert opinion that party expects to offer in evidence at the trial, or (2) a statement that the party does not presently intend to offer the testimony of an expert witness.¿¿(Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2034.260, subd. (b).)¿¿On objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: (1) list that witness as an expert under Section 2034.260; (2) submit an expert witness declaration; (3) produce reports and writings of expert witnesses under Section 2034.270; or make that expert available for a deposition.¿(Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2034.300.)¿ CCP Sec. 2034.230 states "(b) The demand shall specify the date for the exchange of lists of expert trial witnesses, expert witness declarations, and any demanded production of writings. The specified date of exchange shall be 50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date, unless the court, on motion and a showing of good cause, orders an earlier or later date of exchange."¿

Discussion

The central issue in this motion is whether the designation of Dr. Gardiner and Dr. Gish constitutes a permissible supplemental designation under CCP Sec. 2034.280. Franco argues that Dr. Gardiner and Dr. Gish will rebut Bryan Randles' accident reconstruction and biomechanics testimony for Bender.

Franco cites Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Ct., 34 Cal.App.5th 485 ("Du-All"), for the position that a party has the right to supplement its expert witness exchange by adding experts to cover subjects on which the other party indicates it plans to offer expert testimony, and on which the opposing party had not previously retained an expert to testify. In Du-All, the Court of Appeal held that "There is no dispute that Du-All timely and simultaneously designated its initial experts. And also no dispute it timely designated its rebuttal experts in the same fields as plaintiffs' initially designated experts. In short, Du-All complied with the express language of the expert designation statutes. That ends it." (Du-All, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 497.)

Here, like in Du-All, there is no contention that Franco failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Sec. 2034, either in her initial disclosure or in her supplemental disclosure.1 Franco's experts are qualified in the areas that Bender indicated Bryan Randles' testimony would cover, nor has Bender shown any gamesmanship or prejudice. If the parties believe they need additional time to depose the experts, they may stipulate to continue trial or file a motion for a continuance. Any issues as to the scope of Dr. Gardiner and Dr. Gish's testimony are better addressed at the motion in limine phase.

Conclusion

Bender's Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff's Supplemental Experts is DENIED.

Case Number: 26SMCV01743 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Aleksandra Balinska v. Ohad Broide, et al., Case No. 26SMCV01743 Defendant Solan Games' Motion to Quash Service of Summons Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

Plaintiff Aleksandra Balinska sues Defendants Solan Games, Inc. and Ohad Broide for (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) declaratory relief; (6) constructive trust; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) accounting; and (9) inspection of books and records.

Balinska alleges that Solan Games hired her "in a senior operational leadership capacity" on July 22, 2024, and that her compensation included an 8.8 % ownership stake in the company. (Complaint, P. 27.) Balinska alleges that she was terminated a year and a half later and never received the equity she was promised. (Id. at P.P. 31-32.)

On March 12, 2026, Balinska filed the complaint. On May 11, 2026, Solan Games filed this Motion to Quash. This motion was continued several times because Balinsk obtained new counsel between the date the motion was filed and the hearing. On August 27, 2026, Balinska filed opposition. On September 2, 2026, Solan Games replied.

Arguments

Solan Games moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Solan