Title: Fields v. McNamara

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

540 P.2d 327 (1975) William G. FIELDS, Petitioner, v. Hon. George M. McNAMARA, Judge of the Second Judicial District, Respondent. No. 26739. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. September 2, 1975. Friedman, Bader & Dufty, Robert A. Dufty, Denver, for petitioner. Long & Jaudon, P. C., William M. Reed, Denver, for respondent. GROVES, Justice. Under C.R.C.P. 34, the respondent judge issued an order permitting the inspection and copying of records, reports and x-rays. Also, he ordered the petitioner-plaintiff to execute and deliver an authorization allowing such inspection and copying. We issued a rule to show cause as to the breadth of the provisions of the authorization. The matter is now at issue and we make the rule absolute in one respect and discharge the remainder of it. The petitioner brought an action for damages for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The complaint alleged that the petitioner "suffered injuries *328 to his head, neck, back and chest, and other injuries . . . . Some of his injuries have been disabling and will be so in the future." After hearing, the court entered the following order: The authorization referred to in the order reads as follows: The petitioner responded to interrogatories and his deposition was taken. In the respondent's brief it is stated: "Petitioner has been in four other automobile accidents, including a roll-over, and has had two other injuries to his lower back. Some of these injuries pre-date and some post-date the accident in question." In the petitioner's reply brief it is stated: Except as hereinafter noted with respect to ex parte communications, we perceive no error in the provisions of the authorization. In C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2206 it is stated as to Rule 34: The authorization, however, goes too far in permitting ex parte questioning of physicians *329 or others concerning documents to be examined. Not infrequently counsel will stipulate that the defendant's attorney acting ex parte may ask physicians and others to identify documentary material and may ask certain questions concerning itand this is oft-times good practice. The court, however, cannot order such ex parte proceedings; and, if the inspecting party needs further information concerning documentary material, the formal method of eliciting the same is by further discovery procedure. The rule is made absolute insofar as the authorization for ex parte communications with doctors and others are concerned. Otherwise, the rule is discharged. DAY and KELLEY, JJ., do not participate.