Court Opinion

ID: 9927105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 06:05:21.79667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:47.578921
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
             revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                     STATE OF MICHIGAN

                        COURT OF APPEALS

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,                                          UNPUBLISHED
                                                              January 25, 2024
          Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

          Intervening Plaintiff,

v                                                             No. 362690
                                                              Macomb Circuit Court
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE                                 LC No. 2021-002803-NI
COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, SCOTT ALLEN
KOHMESCHER, MARTIN TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES TRUCK
LEASING, LLC,

          Defendants,

and

PAUL FLYNN and JAMAL HAMMOUD,

          Appellants.

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,

          Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

          Intervening Plaintiff,

                                          -1-
v                                                     No. 362698
                                                      Macomb Circuit Court
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE                         LC No. 2021-002803-NI
COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

               Defendant-Appellant,

and

SCOTT ALLEN KOHMESCHER, MARTIN
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES
TRUCK LEASING, LLC,

               Defendants.

YANI SANHARIB WARDA,

               Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GREAT LAKES PHARMACY,

               Intervening Plaintiff,

v                                                     No. 362699
                                                      Macomb Circuit Court
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE                         LC No. 2021-002803-NI
COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, SCOTT ALLEN
KOHMESCHER, MARTIN TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS, and GREAT LAKES TRUCK
LEASING, LLC,

               Defendants,

and

STEVEN KALKANIS and CHRISTIAN SCHUTTE,

               Appellants.

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and HOOD, JJ.

JANSEN, J. (dissenting).

                                            -2-
       For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s order
denying defendant Farm Bureau General Insurance Company’s motion to quash plaintiff Yani
Sanharib Warda’s subpoenas seeking production of tax documents from those individuals who
performed insurance medical examinations (IMEs) of Warda, therefore precluding production of
the IME examiners’ 1099s1 and W-2s for tax years 2019 to 2021, in this no-fault action. I believe
the production of such documents invades the privacy of these nonparties, and the information
sought could be sufficiently obtained by other means.

        Although Michigan allows for a broad, liberal discovery policy, it does not allow for
fishing expeditions. Micheli v Mich Auto Ins Placement Facility, 340 Mich App 360, 371; 986
NW2d 451 (2022). See also MCR 2.302(B)(1) (parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged,
relevant matter proportional to the needs of the case). The Micheli Court determined that expert
witness bias may be shown by whether the expert has a pecuniary interest in the outcome, and as
such, a nonparty’s history of serving as an expert witness as well as their compensation bears on
that person’s credibility and is therefore relevant. Id. at 373-374. However, nonparties clearly
have a privacy interest in their personal tax documents. Micheli, 340 Mich App at 374 n 5.

         Because Warda seeks this information from nonparties, and the main issue is one of bias,
it is sufficient for the IME examiners to provide the information obtained and conclusions drawn
from the IME itself. The IME examiners can be asked what amount or percentage of their total
income they receive from performing IMEs during a deposition. See MCR 2.305(A)(1) (allowing
subpoenas to nonparties for depositions). This is sufficient evidence for the fact-finder to
determine whether bias exists. Even with the conditions imposed by the trial court limiting the tax
information to be disclosed, in balancing the privacy interests of these nonparties, it is still
overreaching. The IME examiners’ income from other sources, for example, which would be
available in their W-2s, is simply not relevant.

        Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash, and remand
the matter to the trial court to grant the motion, quash the subpoenas, and preclude production of
the IME examiners’ 1099s unrelated to performing IMEs and W-2s.

                                                            /s/ Kathleen Jansen

1
 The IME examiners agreed to provide their 1099s relating to IMEs performed, which counsel
confirmed at oral argument. This conclusion relates to any 1099s outside that limitation.

                                               -3-