§ 1258.290.Witness, Opinion Or Data Not Included In Party's List Or Statement
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 7. Discovery; Exchange of Valuation Data · Article 2. Exchange of Valuation Data · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1258.290 lets the court excuse noncompliance with § 1258.280 on just terms, such as a continuance or an award of costs, if the omitting party made a good-faith effort to comply, gave proper notice, and either could not reasonably have known of the witness or data by the exchange date or missed it through excusable neglect.
(a)The court may, upon such terms as may be just (including but not limited to continuing the trial for a reasonable period of time and awarding costs and litigation expenses), permit a party to call a witness, or permit a witness called by a party to testify to an opinion or data on direct examination, during the party's case in chief where such witness, opinion, or data is required to be, but is not, included in such party's list of expert witnesses or statements of valuation data if the court finds that such party has made a good faith effort to comply with Sections 1258.210 to 1258.260, inclusive, that he has complied with Section 1258.270, and that by the date of exchange he:
(1)Would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call such witness or discovered or listed such opinion or data; or
(2)Failed to determine to call such witness or to discover or list such opinion or data through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(b)In making a determination under this section, the court shall take into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied upon the list of expert witnesses and statements of valuation data and will be prejudiced if the witness is called or the testimony concerning such opinion or data is given.
Plain-English Summary
Section 1258.280's exclusions aren't automatic once triggered by objection -- this section gives the court room to let the evidence in anyway, on terms it finds just, including continuing the trial for a reasonable time or awarding costs and litigation expenses to offset any prejudice.
To get that relief, the omitting party has to clear three hurdles. It must have made a good-faith effort to comply with the exchange requirements of §§ 1258.210 through 1258.260. It must have complied with § 1258.270's duty to give notice once it learned of the change. And, as of the date of exchange, it either could not, with reasonable diligence, have determined to call the witness or discovered the opinion or data, or it failed to do so through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Even when those conditions are met, the court doesn't ignore the other side's position. It has to weigh how much the opposing party relied on the original list and statements, and how much prejudice that party would suffer if the witness is called or the testimony comes in anyway.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a party show to overcome § 1258.280's exclusion?
A good-faith effort to comply with the exchange requirements, compliance with the notice duty in § 1258.270, and either that it could not reasonably have known of the witness or data by the exchange date, or that the omission resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
What can the court do to soften the impact of allowing late evidence?
The court may act on such terms as are just, including continuing the trial for a reasonable period and awarding costs and litigation expenses.
Does the court consider how the other side relied on the original exchange?
Yes. Section 1258.290(b) requires the court to weigh the opposing party's reliance on the lists and statements and the prejudice it would suffer.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:excuse late expert disclosure eminent domain californiagood cause unlisted witness valuation data