If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

Intervening Plaintiff,

UNPUBLISHED

January 25, 2024

v No. 362690

Macomb Circuit Court

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, SCOTT ALLEN 

KOHMESCHER, MARTIN TRANSPORT 

SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES TRUCK 

LEASING, LLC,

LC No. 2021-002803-NI

Defendants,

and

PAUL FLYNN and JAMAL HAMMOUD,

Appellants.

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

Intervening Plaintiff,
-2-

v No. 362698

Macomb Circuit Court

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

LC No. 2021-002803-NI

Defendant-Appellant,

and

SCOTT ALLEN KOHMESCHER, MARTIN 

TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES 

TRUCK LEASING, LLC,

Defendants.

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v No. 362699

Macomb Circuit Court

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, SCOTT ALLEN 

KOHMESCHER, MARTIN TRANSPORT 

SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES TRUCK 

LEASING, LLC,

LC No. 2021-002803-NI

Defendants,

and 

STEVEN KALKANIS and CHRISTIAN SCHUTTE,

Appellants.

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and HOOD, JJ.

JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
-3-

For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s order 

denying defendant Farm Bureau General Insurance Company’s motion to quash plaintiff Yani 

Sanharib Warda’s subpoenas seeking production of tax documents from those individuals who 

performed insurance medical examinations (IMEs) of Warda, therefore precluding production of 

the IME examiners’ 1099s1and W-2s for tax years 2019 to 2021, in this no-fault action. I believe 

the production of such documents invades the privacy of these nonparties, and the information 

sought could be sufficiently obtained by other means. 

Although Michigan allows for a broad, liberal discovery policy, it does not allow for 

fishing expeditions. Micheli v Mich Auto Ins Placement Facility, 340 Mich App 360, 371; 986 

NW2d 451 (2022). See also MCR 2.302(B)(1) (parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged, 

relevant matter proportional to the needs of the case). The Micheli Court determined that expert 

witness bias may be shown by whether the expert has a pecuniary interest in the outcome, and as 

such, a nonparty’s history of serving as an expert witness as well as their compensation bears on 

that person’s credibility and is therefore relevant. Id. at 373-374. However, nonparties clearly 

have a privacy interest in their personal tax documents. Micheli, 340 Mich App at 374 n 5. 

Because Warda seeks this information from nonparties, and the main issue is one of bias, 

it is sufficient for the IME examiners to provide the information obtained and conclusions drawn

from the IME itself. The IME examiners can be asked what amount or percentage of their total 

income they receive from performing IMEs during a deposition. See MCR 2.305(A)(1) (allowing 

subpoenas to nonparties for depositions). This is sufficient evidence for the fact-finder to 

determine whether bias exists. Even with the conditions imposed by the trial court limiting the tax 

information to be disclosed, in balancing the privacy interests of these nonparties, it is still 

overreaching. The IME examiners’ income from other sources, for example, which would be 

available in their W-2s, is simply not relevant. 

Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash, and remand 

the matter to the trial court to grant the motion, quash the subpoenas, and preclude production of 

the IME examiners’ 1099s unrelated to performing IMEs and W-2s. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

 

1 The IME examiners agreed to provide their 1099s relating to IMEs performed, which counsel 

confirmed at oral argument. This conclusion relates to any 1099s outside that limitation.