Opinion ID: 2274592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Falik v. Holthus

Text: On 18 January 2008, Clint and Julia R. Collins-Holthus (collectively, Holthus) filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County a complaint against Gilberto Martinez alleging that they were injured in an automobile accident that occurred allegedly as a result of Martinez's negligence. Martinez designated Dr. Falik, the same expert that the defendant in Hornage designated, as a non-treating medical expert witness. Holthus filed a notice of records deposition duces tecum, to be followed by a testimonial deposition, seeking information relating to Dr. Falik's prior services as a forensic expert witness. Dr. Falik filed a motion for protective order in which he objected to the following duces tecum requests: 10. Copies of all 1099 forms and/or those portions of the deponent's income tax returns for the last 2 years referencing any payments made to the depoponent(s) [sic] in connection with medical-legal services. (Other portions of the tax returns relating to professional expenses, other earned or unearned income and deductions are not requested)    13. Any documents showing the amounts paid to Joel Falik, M.D. for independent medical examinations performed by Joel Falik, M.D.in 2006 and 2007.[ [3] ]    17. All 1099s for the past two years for work done by deponent(s) at the request of or paid by [defense counsel's law firm] or any lawyer in that office including, but not limited to, [defense counsel].[ [4] ] 18. All 1099s for the past two years for work done by the deponent(s) at the request of or which was paid by any State Farm Insurance Company. 19. A list of all cases on which the deponent(s) has worked for the past two years for [defense counsel's law firm] or any lawyer in that office including, but not limited to, [defense counsel]. 20. A list of all cases on which the deponent has worked for the past two (2) years for State Farm Insurance Company. Holthus filed an opposition to the motion, but indicated that they would consent to a confidentiality order for the protection of Dr. Falik's privacy. The trial court held a hearing on 28 April 2009 and thereafter issued an order in which it granted in part and denied in part the physician's motion. The order directed Dr. Falik to produce the items listed in requests #10 and #18, but limited the requests to the years 2007 and 2008. The court denied the motion with respect to requests #13 and #17. [5] The order also contained the following limitations that addressed Dr. Falik's privacy concerns: 1. Dr. Falik may redact all identifying information from the documents produced, such as social security numbers and tax identification numbers. 2. Dr. Falik may mark/stamp all produced financial documents CONFIDENTIAL. 3. For purposes of this case only, all confidential financial documents pertaining to Dr. Falik provided to Plaintiff's counsel may be reviewed only by counsel, counsel's staff, the parties, and any expert in this case. 4. Any and all confidential financial documents produced by Dr. Falik shall not be photocopied, scanned, reproduced or disseminated in any way to anyone, other than counsel in this case, the parties or any expert, and may not be utilized outside of this case. These confidential financial documents and all copies thereof will be returned to Dr. Falik's counsel by Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of a final judgment or settlement of this case. Any expert or party who receives or views confidential financial documents regarding Dr. Falik shall agree in writing before receiving or reviewing same to abide by this Order and an executed copy of each such agreement shall be provided to counsel for Dr. Falik by counsel for Plaintiffs promptly upon the execution thereof. 5. Any confidential documents produced pertaining to Dr. Falik shall not be posted on the Internet, emailed, disseminated or communicated to any person or to any email list-serve or any similar such group or organization. Dr. Falik and Martinez, apparently aggrieved by the trial court's only qualified favor found in the motion for protective order, filed timely separate notices of immediate appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. They complained in their briefs that the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it ordered Dr. Falik to produce the limited financial records it did. While that case was pending in the intermediate appellate court, but before arguments could be held, Dr. Falik filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, [6] pointing out the common issue assumedly presented in Hornage, for which we had issued already a writ of certiorari. We granted the petition, 410 Md. 559, 979 A.2d 707 (2009), and consolidated Holthus with Hornage.