In Monroy v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 248, the Second District reversed a trial court's judgment in a traffic accident case which resulted in a defense verdict. One of the several bases for that reversal was the trial court's restriction on the number of expert witnesses the parties could call, permitting "only one expert to testify to the same opinion, including percipient witnesses, regardless of which party elicited the testimony." (Id. at p. 266.) The Monroy court found this to be error, holding: "Trial courts may not use their powers to control the orderly conduct of the proceedings, to prevent cumulative evidence , and to limit the number of expert witnesses , if it destroys a plaintiff's evidentiary presentation. Overly restrictive limitations on the introduction of evidence and on the method and manner of presenting a case can undercut a plaintiff's case by preventing that party from presenting evidence in an organized and coherent way. Even if a defense expert will testify to the same conclusion as a plaintiff's own expert, the testimony will not be identical, will have different focus, and will be accompanied by different explanations. Subtleties in responses can be critical. Repetition is often the key to believability and credibility may be enhanced when a defense expert agrees with a plaintiff's expert. Identical or virtually identical evidence may not be cumulative if there is significance to the evidentiary weight to be given. It is often invaluable to have evidence come from different sources." (Monroy, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at pp. 266-267.)