Opinion ID: 2588193
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether Plaintiffs were required to supplement Dr. Cohn's deposition testimony

Text: Plaintiffs contend that, assuming Dr. Cohn's proffered trial testimony regarding the failure to treat Barcai's hypertension constituted a new opinion, Plaintiffs were under no obligation to inform the defense of this new opinion because the defense did not serve any requests for answers to interrogatories, production of documents, or admissions. Plaintiffs point out that, in August 1997, when the defense became aware of then-codefendant MMH's claim that Dr. Cohn was providing a new opinion, Plaintiffs offered to have Dr. Cohn re-deposed, but defense counsel buried his head in the sand and refused to conduct further discovery. Plaintiffs assert that the defense's intentional refusal to discover new information should not be rewarded. HRCP Rule 26(e) (1998) describes a party's duty to supplement responses to discovery requests: (e) Supplementation of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired, except as follows: (1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement his response with respect to any question directly addressed to (A) the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, and (B) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, and the substance of his testimony. (Bold emphasis in original.) (Underscored emphases added.) At the September 20, 1994 oral deposition, Dr. Cohn indicated that his testimony encompassed all of the reasons upon which he based his opinions with respect to the care rendered to Barcai. Once the deposition was completed, HRCP Rule 26(e)(1)(B) clearly imposed upon Plaintiffs an affirmative duty to supplement Dr. Cohn's previous answers if the answers would be different at trial. Plaintiffs appear to argue that the language of HRCP Rule 26(e)(1) requires supplementation only when the question is directly addressed by way of interrogatory or requests for production of documents or admissions. However, the language of the rule applies more broadly to all methods of discovery, including oral depositions. The first paragraph of the rule refers to a party who has responded to a request for discovery .... (Emphasis added.) An oral deposition is a method of discovery. HRCP Rule 26(a). [6] Similarly, the term response in HRCP Rule 26(e)(1) refers to this same request for discovery in the first paragraph of HRCP Rule 26(e); thus, the supplemental response required is a response to all methods of discovery, not just select methods such as interrogatories and requests for admissions. The ICA held similarly in Swink v. Cooper, 77 Hawai`i 209, 881 P.2d 1277 (App. 1994). In that medical malpractice case, the plaintiff's expert testified in her deposition that the defendant physician had violated the standard of care in two respects: first, by performing poorly the procedure in question (correction of a droopy eyelid); and, second, by repeating the procedure when it did not work the first time. See Swink, 77 Hawai`i at 210, 213, 881 P.2d at 1279, 1281. At trial, however, the expert's testimony appeared to be heading towards criticizing the defendant's choice of the particular surgical procedure as opposed to other procedures, which would have amounted to a third theory of negligence. See id. at 213, 881 P.2d at 1281. The expert was precluded from testifying as to the third theory of negligence, and the plaintiff asserted this as error on appeal. See id. Relying upon HRCP Rule 26(e)(1)(B), the ICA held that the plaintiff had a duty to supplement her expert's deposition testimony if the expert was going to propound an alternative theory of liability at trial. See id. at 213-14, 881 P.2d at 1281-82. The ICA did not distinguish between whether the defendant originally conducted discovery through oral depositions or through interrogatories or other written requests; nor do we discern a valid reason to do so because it is abundantly clear that complete and accurate pretrial discovery of expert witnesses is critical to a fair trial, and HRCP 26 is designed to promote candor and fairness in the pretrial discovery process and to eliminate surprises at trial. Lee v. Elbaum, 77 Hawai`i 446, 454, 887 P.2d 656, 664 (App.1993), cert. dismissed, 77 Hawai`i 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1995); see also Barnes v. St. Francis Hospital and School of Nursing, Inc., 211 Kan. 315, 507 P.2d 288, 293-94 (1973) (applying a rule nearly identical to HRCP Rule 26(e) to hold that the failure of an expert witness to seasonably supplement his deposition to state an additional basis for his opinion precluded the expert from testifying as to the additional basis). Finally, Plaintiffs in effect assert that their duty to supplement Dr. Cohn's deposition answers was met by offering to have Dr. Cohn redeposed. We do not agree. The duty to supplement outlined in HRCP Rule 26(e) is an affirmative duty; it cannot be met by offering to have the adverse party undertake a discovery fishing expedition to find possible new opinions. Moreover, the parties were bound to a trial schedule, including a discovery schedule, established by the court; it would be inefficient and unfair to disrupt this schedule by forcing the adverse party to reopen depositions to determine compliance of the supplementing party's obligation. Were such a practice allowed, every party in every case involving experts would be compelled to redepose expert witnesses up to the time of trial in order to ensure that no new opinions have been formulated since the expert's last deposition. Clearly, such practice would unfairly increase litigation costs and result in delays. Based on the foregoing discussion, we hold that, assuming Dr. Cohn did in fact have a new opinion, Plaintiffs had an affirmative obligation to supplement Dr. Cohn's previous deposition answers and that offering to have him redeposed was not sufficient to meet that obligation. Accordingly, we also hold that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of Dr. Cohn's purported new opinion. See Swink, 77 Hawai`i at 214, 881 P.2d at 1282 (a trial court has wide discretion to exclude an expert witness' testimony when a party has failed to supplement the expert's discovery responses).