Opinion ID: 1744914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in reference to specific medical texts due to the lack of seasonable supplementation.

Text: ¶ 11. On April 17, 2000, Dr. Pruett propounded an interrogatory requesting that the Hartels [i]dentify all treatises to be used in direct examination at the trial of this case. [6] The Hartels answered that they would respond and supplement in strict accordance with Rule 803(18). On June 15, 2005, six days prior to trial, counsel for the Hartels sent a fax to counsel for defendants providing the names of several medical articles which might be used during the Hartels' case-in-chief. Thereafter, Dr. Pruett and EM Care filed a joint motion in limine seeking to exclude these medical articles because they were not timely disclosed. On June 19, 2005, counsel for the Hartels faxed the medical articles to counsel for the defendants. The circuit court ruled that because the Hartels had failed to seasonably disclose their intention to use the medical articles at trial, the Hartels' expert witnesses could not rely upon or refer to them on direct examination. [7] ¶ 12. On appeal, the Hartels first contend that they were required only to disclose the medical articles prior to trial. They maintain that Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(18) merely provides that treatises, periodicals, and pamphlets must be disclosed ... pursuant to discovery. Miss. R. Evid. 803(18). Next, the Hartels argue that their disclosure was not untimely, as they did not gather the medical articles until May 2005. [8] Finally, the Hartels assert that the proximity of their disclosure to the date of trial did not prejudice the defendants because adequate time remained for their expert witnesses to review the medical articles prior to trial. ¶ 13. In response, the defendants maintain that the Hartels had a duty under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) to seasonably supplement their discovery response to the interrogatory regarding what treatises would be used at trial; that the Hartels' disclosure of the subject medical articles only six days before trial was not a seasonable supplementation; and that the Hartels' untimely disclosure unduly prejudiced the defendants, as their attorneys and expert witnesses were not provided sufficient pre-trial time in which to adequately examine these complex articles and prepare to refute them. ¶ 14. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) provides, in relevant part, that: (1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement that party's response with respect to any question directly addressed to ... (B) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of the testimony. Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1) (emphasis added). This Court has laid down no hard and fast rule as to what amounts to seasonable supplementation.... Eastover Bank for Savs. v. Hall, 587 So.2d 266, 272 (Miss. 1991). [S]easonableness must be determined on a case by case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the supplemental information the offering party seeks to admit. Blanton v. Bd. of Supervisors, 720 So.2d 190, 196 (Miss. 1998). ¶ 15. In Blanton, this Court held that the trial court's exclusion of an appraiser's supplemental report, disclosed six days before trial, was not an abuse of discretion. See Blanton, 720 So.2d at 196. This Court found that the opposing party was prejudiced because of the inherent complexity of the case, coupled with the crucial nature of the appraiser's report. Id. The opposing party simply was not afforded sufficient time prior to trial to prepare a rebuttal to the supplemental report. See id.; Square D Co. v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Miss.1982) ([o]ne of the principal reasons for permitting interrogatories for pretrial discovery of the opinion held by experts and the substance of their testimony is to prevent trial by ambush and surprise....). ¶ 16. If counsel for the Hartels had disclosed the medical articles to the defendants shortly after gathering them in May 2005, the supplementation may have been seasonable. However, the circuit court ruled that the disclosure only six days prior to trial provided insufficient time for defendants' counsel adequately to prepare a rebuttal in the case sub judice, i.e., to let their expert witnesses read the articles, confer thereon, and retrieve medical literature supporting their position. As in Blanton, the complexity of this case and the importance of the subject medical articles to the Hartels' case support the circuit court's finding that admission would have prejudiced the defendants. Accordingly, this Court finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in foreclosing the Hartels' expert witnesses from relying upon or referring to the subject medical articles on direct examination.