Opinion ID: 1194834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Pending Discovery

Text: We now consider the remaining secondary issue. Hare points out that at the time the summary judgment motions were granted, pretrial discovery had not been completed. Hare's motion to compel discovery against TKI was pending. TKI contends that none of the remaining discovery sought by Hare would affect his ability to present expert evidence on causation. Also, Dr. Logan's ability to offer opinions on causation was strictly within Hare's control. We agree. Hare's fundamental problem is his lack of expert medical causation evidence. Even assuming TKI produced documents showing complaints against Dr. Wendler before Hare's second hospitalization at TKI, such discovery would not cure Hare's failure to obtain any expert opinion on causation. The discovery Hare sought to compel against TKI came late in the game. The district court correctly concluded that this discovery was irrelevant to the problem of Hare's lack of expert evidence on causation and the question of whether the common knowledge exception should apply. Affirmed. LOCKETT and DAVIS, JJ., not participating. GARY W. RULON, J., and RICHARD W. WAHL, Senior Judge, assigned. [1]