O'Connor v. Myshyniuk
The trial court opted not to exclude from evidence the testimony of an expert witness (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300),[1] even though the party eliciting the testimony (Larry Myshyniuk) failed to designate the expert in a timely fashion pursuant to section 2034.260. Myshyniuk designated his expert nearly six months after the date for exchange of expert information agreed to by the parties. Moreover, Myshyniuk did not seek leave of the court to submit an augmented or tardy designation. (See §§ 2034.610, 2034.710.) James O'Connor and Richard Pocoroba appeal the ensuing judgment, claiming the court abused its discretion by allowing Myshyniuk's expert to testify. We affirm the judgment. The court was within its discretion in deciding Myshyniuk's failure to designate his expert in a timely fashion was not â€
Comments on O'Connor v. Myshyniuk