Opinion ID: 2175548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ruling and its context.

Text: Section VII(3) of the trial judge's Standing Memorandum and Order in Civil I cases provided as follows: Exhibits to be introduced, and witnesses who are to testify, at trial shall be limited to those identified in the pre-trial statements of the parties, except as to exhibits that might be introduced, or witnesses who might testify, for purposes of impeachment. (Emphasis added). The first evidentiary issue presented to us by R. & G. relates to the proper construction of this limitation on the eligibility of witnesses, and especially of the italicized phrase. Dr. Patricia Schultz, although employed by Howard, was called as Ms. Brown's first witness. Her testimony, as we have noted, see pages 533 to 535, supra, provided Ms. Brown with her heaviest artillery against R. & G. She testified that she had directed R. & G. to use plastizote in Ms. Brown's orthopedic shoes, and she claimed to have been horrified when R. & G. failed to do so. Dr. Schultz's testimony, if credited, could be devastating to R. & G., and counsel for that defendant devoted a considerable amount of effort to impeaching Dr. Schultz. When the time came for R. & G.'s counsel to present its defense, she requested leave of court to examine Dr. Schultz as an adverse witness. There was no objection from the attorneys for either of the other parties, and the judge granted R. & G.'s request. Under these circumstances, R. & G. had the right to call Dr. Schultz in its own case, but nevertheless to attempt to impeach her with a prior inconsistent statement. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 43(b); Cooper v. Saunders-Hunt, 365 A.2d 626, 629 (D.C.1976); III A.J. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, § 916, at 709 (Chadbourn Ed.1970 & 1991 Supp.). R. & G.'s counsel embarked on this strategy by confronting Dr. Schultz with her failure to write plastizote on the prescription blank issued to the other proposed supplier, Charlotte Gottlieb. After thus attempting to cast doubt on Dr. Schultz's assertions that she had insisted on plastizote, R. & G.'s attorney continued her examination as follows: Q: Doctor do you know a [prosthetist] by the name of Mark Berman? A: Yes, I do. Q: Do you recall having a conversation about this case with Mark Berman?       THE WITNESS: Yes. Q: Do you recall telling him that about the prescription that you wrote to R. & G. for Mrs. Brown's custom molded shoes? A: No. Q: You don't recall that? A: I don't remember the details. Q: Do you recall telling him you did not specify plastizote on that prescription? A. No, I don't. Counsel for Howard now objected on the ground that Dr. Berman had not been identified as a witness in R. & G.'s pretrial statement. When R. & G.'s attorney attempted to explain, the judge was plainly not enthralled: MS. CUMMINS (Counsel for R. & G.): Your Honor, if Mark Berman is called and he's under subpoenahe will be ... an impeachment witness, and it's my understanding that impeachment witnesses are not required to be named. THE COURT: No, you don't play those games with me. You have known from the outset you were going to call him as a witness. MS. CUMMINS: I didn't. THE COURT: Well how did you know to examine him about it when nobody else has? It came up on your own examination. MS. CUMMINS: That's right, and this trial has made some news in the field of orthotics and THE COURT: Well, you have a continuing duty to disclose. You can't put on a witness just because you're permitted to call that witness as an adverse witness and elicit something for the first time you knew about and having disclosed to other counsel and then call it impeachment. The only witnesses you're not obligated to disclose in this case are people who are genuinely impeachment witnesses; people who are called in rebuttal to things other people raise you didn't know were coming out and then you go out and find those witnesses. You can't play these kinds of games Ms. Cummins. The judge sustained Howard's objection, and instructed the jury that Dr. Berman would not testify and that no evidence would be presented regarding any alleged conversation between him and Dr. Schultz.