In what circumstances will a trial court reject the contents of a declaration of intent to amend her testimony in order to extend the statute of limitations?

In circumstances such as this, a trial court is free to accept a reliable admission against interest made during discovery and to reject a position taken later. This choice is particularly called for where, as here, appellant waited from October 1982 until January 1985 to make changes in her testimony, when she was apparently inspired to do so by pressures of the pending motion for summary judgment. (See Gray v. Reeves (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 567, 574, 142 Cal.Rptr. 716.) Thus, the trial court could properly reject the contents of appellant's declaration and find that the evidence was undisputed that she knew or should have known all facts necessary to commence the running of the statute of limitations at least one year before filing of the complaint in this action.

To avoid this result, appellant seeks to rely on Kensinger v. Abbott Laboratories (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 376, 217 Cal.Rptr. 313, another DES case decided by division one of this court, in which it was concluded that the one-year statute of limitations in section 340, subdivision (3) begins to run "only when the plaintiff discovers or with reasonable diligence should have discovered the drug manufacturer's wrongful conduct." (Id., at p. 386, 217 Cal.Rptr. 313.)