Garrett further held that a trial court of California.
Garrett further held that a trial court "must liberally construe the evidence submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion," and that the "reasoned explanation required in an expert declaration filed in opposition to [such aJ motion need not be as detailed or extensive as that required in expert testimony presented in support of a sun1rnary judgment motion or at trial." (Id. ATP. 189 [emphases added).) Thus, "[liberally construing" the declaration at issue, the Comment of Appeal found it admissible. (Id. at pp. 187, 189.) These recent decisions suggest that "gatekeeping" includes both denying and allowing evidence through the gate. It thus remains to be seen whether courts \vill apply Sargon expansively or narrowly. Will the "decisional law" of California Los Angeles business lawyer develop to create further "reasons for excluding expert opinion testimony," as Sargon allows? (Sargon, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 772 ...