Cal. BPC § 2334
This is the official text of Cal. BPC § 2334, part of California’s Business and Professions Code — regulates business practices and professional/occupational licensing - contractors, doctors, cosmetologists, real estate agents, and dozens of other licensed professions.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to the use of expert testimony in matters brought by the Medical Board of California, no expert testimony shall be permitted by any party unless the following information is exchanged in written form with counsel for the other party, as ordered by the Office of Administrative Hearings:
(1) A curriculum vitae setting forth the qualifications of the expert.
(2) A complete expert witness report, which must include the following:
(A) A complete statement of all opinions the expert will express and the bases and reasons for each opinion.
(B) The facts or data considered by the expert in forming the opinions.
(C) Any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions.
(3) A representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the hearing.
(4) A statement of the expert’s hourly and daily fee for providing testimony and for consulting with the party who retained their services.
(5) A statement, if any, provided pursuant to Section 2220.2.
(b) The exchange of the information described in subdivision (a) shall be completed no later than 90 calendar days prior to the originally scheduled commencement date of the hearing, or as determined by an administrative law judge when Section 11529 of the Government Code applies. Upon motion to extend the deadline based on a showing of good cause, the administrative law judge may extend the time for the exchange of information for a period not to exceed 100 calendar days cumulatively, but in no case shall the exchange take place less than 30 calendar days before the hearing date, whichever comes first.
(c) The Office of Administrative Hearings may adopt regulations governing the required exchange of the information described in this section.
(1) A curriculum vitae setting forth the qualifications of the expert.
(2) A complete expert witness report, which must include the following:
(A) A complete statement of all opinions the expert will express and the bases and reasons for each opinion.
(B) The facts or data considered by the expert in forming the opinions.
(C) Any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions.
(3) A representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the hearing.
(4) A statement of the expert’s hourly and daily fee for providing testimony and for consulting with the party who retained their services.
(5) A statement, if any, provided pursuant to Section 2220.2.
(b) The exchange of the information described in subdivision (a) shall be completed no later than 90 calendar days prior to the originally scheduled commencement date of the hearing, or as determined by an administrative law judge when Section 11529 of the Government Code applies. Upon motion to extend the deadline based on a showing of good cause, the administrative law judge may extend the time for the exchange of information for a period not to exceed 100 calendar days cumulatively, but in no case shall the exchange take place less than 30 calendar days before the hearing date, whichever comes first.
(c) The Office of Administrative Hearings may adopt regulations governing the required exchange of the information described in this section.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in California?
Find a California lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.