Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
271 Cal. Rptr. 698 (1990)


Facts

Alfredo Hernandez (plaintiff) sued the County of Los Angeles (County) (defendant), alleging medical malpractice. Initially, the County designated Dr. M. Anthony Verity, a board-certified pathologist, as an expert witness, and Dr. Verity prepared a report for the County. Hernandez had not yet designated a pathologist as an expert witness. Hernandez noticed the deposition of Dr. Verity. However, a few days before the scheduled deposition date, the County withdrew its designation of Dr. Verity as an expert. The County’s counsel informed Dr. Verity that his testimony may not be needed at trial, but the County wanted to continue using him as a consultant to prepare for trial. Hernandez’s counsel contacted Dr. Verity and insisted that Hernandez could hire Dr. Verity now. Dr. Verity expressed doubts, but Hernandez’s counsel was persistent. Dr. Verity met with Hernandez’s counsel and discussed the report that Dr. Verity had prepared for the County. Hernandez then designated Dr. Verity as his expert witness. The County discovered what had happened and moved for a protective order. The County also requested that Hernandez’s counsel be disqualified because he had viewed the County’s privileged attorney work product and could not unview it. The trial court denied the County’s motion and allowed Hernandez to designate Dr. Verity as an expert. The County appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Goertzen, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.