In Castaline v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 580, a personal injury action, the trial court excluded the testimony of a doctor who examined one of the plaintiffs three days before trial. (Castaline v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 47 Cal. App. 3d at p. 591.) The defendant objected that the doctor would be a " 'surprise witness.' " (Ibid.) Defense counsel stated that, based on interrogatory responses he received from plaintiffs indicating they had fully recovered from their injuries, he had withdrawn defendant's request that plaintiffs be examined by defendant's physician. (Id. at pp. 591-592.) The plaintiffs did not state what they expected the doctor's testimony to prove. (Id. at p. 592.) The appellate court concluded the defendant's claim of unfair surprise had merit, noting that the defendant produced no medical testimony and plaintiffs did not challenge defendant's statement that it cancelled the medical examination after receiving the interrogatory answers. (Ibid.)