Opinion ID: 1707689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Palmer v. BRMC

Text: On May 4, 1983, BRMC filed its answer to Palmer's complaint denying the allegations and declaring affirmative defenses. On May 12, 1983, BRMC propounded interrogatories to Palmer. On June 29, 1983, after receiving an extension of time, BRMC answered Palmer's interrogatories and request for production of documents. On July 28, 1983, BRMC filed a motion to compel Palmer to answer its interrogatories. Palmer responded on September 13, 1983  the date on which a hearing was scheduled for consideration of BRMC's motion. On October 6, then-presiding Judge Vlahos ordered Palmer to be more specific and provide supplemental answers to BRMC's interrogatories on or before November 1. [9] Palmer provided the supplemental answers prior to the deadline. On October 19, 1983, BRMC filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; however, this motion was not addressed by the trial judge until years later. The record indicates that the trial judge may have treated the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment. Whether this was actually done is not clear. Vol. IV, at 571 and 732. Notably, neither party initiated further discovery or other action during the next three years until June 24, 1986, when BRMC filed another motion to dismiss  this time under Rule 37. Rule 37 provides a trial judge with considerable latitude to impose sanctions for failure to make or cooperate in discovery. BRMC's basis for dismissal was Palmer's failure to seasonably supplement [his] answer to Interrogatory No. 3  which comprised the following request: Interrogatory No. 3: Identify fully, giving the names, address, and telephone number of each and every person who you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial of this cause, and state the following about such expert: (a) The subject matter, in specific detail, on which the expert is expected to testify; (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (c) A summary of the grounds for each opinion to which the expert is expected to testify. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 3: My attorneys have not decided which expert they will call. Palmer finally answered the interrogatory on July 3, 1986, and proffered Lamphier and Marilyn Palmer as experts adverse to BRMC's interest. [10] Notably, this information was not provided BRMC until two days after Wooten deposed Lamphier in Massachusetts (cautious attorneys for BRMC nonetheless made an appearance at the deposition). On October 3, 1986, BRMC filed a supplemental answer to Palmer's expert interrogatory (which Palmer had filed on March 30, 1983). BRMC named its former co-defendant, Dr. Frank Martin, as its expert. On October 5, 1983, Palmer filed a notice of taking deposition of BRMC's nursing supervisor, and a notice of making inspection of BRMC's ICU. On the same day, BRMC filed an answer ( i.e., an objection) to Palmer's inspection request. The inspection never transpired. BRMC's motions for dismissal were originally scheduled to be considered along with Wooten's motion when the June 13 (1986) hearing continued. But as noted in the previous subsection, the hearing was rescheduled twice and was not continued and concluded until October 6, 1986. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearings, the judge on October 23, 1986, grant[ed] the relief sought by BRMC and dismissed [Palmer's] Complaint with prejudice. As was done upon granting Wooten's motion, the judge substantiated his decision to grant BRMC's motion via separate, written analysis.