Opinion ID: 2346556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery to Name a Medical Expert

Text: Pursuant to the initial scheduling order, plaintiff was required to designate her experts and their expected testimony in compliance with Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b)(4) [1] by October 15, 1997. On that date she filed a preliminary Rule 26(b)(4) statement, [2] a preliminary witness list, and a motion to extend time to complete discovery to submit a 26(b)(4) statement. In her motion to extend time to complete discovery, appellant asked for a thirty-day extension and indicated that she would need her complete medical records before she could designate a medical expert. The appellees opposed the request, claiming that appellant's medical records have always been available to her and could have been obtained pursuant to a properly executed authorization. Appellant's motion was twice denied by the trial court. [3] According to appellant, subsequent to the denial of her motion to extend time to complete discovery, she obtained her medical records and retained an expert who would have testified that appellant suffered physical injury, mental distress, and emotional injury as a result of the fire.