Throughout litigation, there are times when you, as attorney for your injured client, must be able and willing to enforce your client's rights and obtain the evidence to win your case and protect your client from being taken advantage of by defense counsel seeking an unwarranted edge.  In California, the following cases are absolutely essential for a successful injury victim attorney to know.

Stewart v. Western Colonial, 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).
Make the Defendant Answer Questions at Deposition

Frequently, defense counsel will object to particularly damaging questions and instruct their client not to answer the question.  For example, questions such as, "Do you think you are responsible for causing the accident?", are highly valuable but also damaging to the defense.  If they can get the defendant not to answer, it takes away
a valuable answer from your trial arsenal.

However, the Stewart case holds that the only basis for an instruction not to answer at deposition is privilege or privacy.  Alternatively, the only recourse for defense counsel is to immediately adjourn the deposition and move for a protective order.  The Court, quoting the trial court's admonition of the defense counsel, stated "[The defense counsel doesn't] assume the role of a judge and instruct the witness not to answer
a question in deposition.  That is a huge no-no."

Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 1101 (1997).
Make the Deponent Act Out How the Incident Occurred

If you are videotaping a deposition, you have the absolute right to ask the deponent to act out how an accident occurred.  Then, because the deposition of a party may be used for any purpose at trial, the videotaped reenactment can be used as demonstrative evidence of how the accident occurred.  In addition to requesting the deponent act out how the accident occurred, the deponent can be asked to draw a diagram.

Schreiber v. Kiser, 22 Cal.4th 31 (1997).
Guidelines for Expert Witness Designation

The Schreiber decision lays out the requirements for designating retained experts and non-retained experts (e.g., treating physicians and police officers) before trial.  The Supreme Court held that non-retained experts need only be identified by the party seeking to use their testimony, but a declaration as to the scope and basis for expertise of the witness as called for by the Code of Civil Procedure is not required, as it is with retained expert witnesses.  The reasoning for this opinion is that the non-retained expert forms his/her opinion during the underlying factual events of the case (investigating the accident, treating the injury, etc.). 

However, be careful.  If you provide the expert with facts and evidence outside of their knowledge they obtained during the factual events of the case (e.g., providing the witness with depositions of other witnesses, etc.), the court may determine that the witness is now a retained expert and a declaration should have been executed.

Allen v. Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.3d 447 (1984).
Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass'n v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 691 (2000).
Obtaining Defense Expert Financial Information

Ever want to know how much a defense expert earns from working for the defense or how much of their practice is derived from defense work?  How about how much money he/she earned from defense work?

The Allen case holds that a defense expert at deposition must testify as to (1) the percentage of his practice involving defense examinations and (2) how much compensation is derived from defense work.  The Stony Brook I case requires the defense expert to provide (1) a numerical expert of defense medical examinations compared to examinations of plaintiffs and (2) a numerical estimate of the amount of income generated from litigation (divided into defense and plaintiff work).  The Court in Stony Brook I also held that the defense expert was required to review his files to obtain the required information.  If the expert felt that was too cumbersome, a third party could be allowed to review the expert's files and provide that information.

Kelly v. New West, 49 Cal.App.4th 659 (1996).
Limiting Motions in Limine

Occasionally, defense counsel seek orders from the court prior to trial which do not address the factual and legal issues in a particular case but rather seek to have rulings issued which simply declare existing law and do not provide "any meaningful guidance for the parties or witnesses."  When this happens, simply cite Kelly and state that the defense's motion lacks a factual basis and is not an appropriate motion in limine pursuant to Kelly.  Kelly is also useful to oppose a motion seeking to compel witness testimony to conform to testimony given duren pretrial discovery.  In other words, the witness is free to testify at trial as they wish.  However, if there are inconsistencies, expect for opposing counsel to comment on the discrepencies.

Kennemur v. State of California, 133 Cal.App.3d 907 (1982).
Jones v. Moore, 80 Cal.App.4th 557 (2000).
Limit the Scope of Defense Expert Testimony; Allow Your Experts to Be Free

A key issue that arises at trial is whether experts should be limited by the expert designation and their deposition testimony.  Kennemur allows plaintiff counsel to designate the nature and scope of expert testimony broadly.

So long as this is done, the expert can testify extremely broadly as to the general scope of the designation.  However, once an expert is deposed, the scope and nature of their opinions is generally limited.  On the other hand, Kennemur allows your expert to rebut defense counsel's opinions--even if not testified to at deposition--so long as that is explained at your expert's deposition and the expert designation is broad enough to encompass that task.

Jones dovetails with Kennemur.  It's key holding is that the opposing party is entitled to rely upon the other party's experts representation that the opinions expressed at deposition are the only ones that will be presented at trial.  If the other party's expert attempts to slide an additional opinion in at trial, you should object and cite Jones to exclude the opinion.

Armed with these cases, you will be well equipped to assist your client and enforce their rights.