Court Opinion

ID: 9704245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:27:52.676311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:59.140159
License: Public Domain

SIMONETT, Justice
(concurring specially).
The court says this is not a case where counsel’s “dereliction” in answering interrogatories is inexcusable. I see no excuse, however, for the unresponsive answers. Plaintiff’s answers revealed nothing of the identity of “Steven Lavin, R.N.” or of the substance of his expected testimony, even though plaintiff had that information. It is no defense to argue that defendant could have deposed Lavin. Once the clerk set a trial date, the difficulties in finding a medical expert were overcome, and while the time was then short, Dr. Tullock had reviewed the documentary evidence, agreed to testify, and corresponded with plaintiff’s counsel about his opinions. Interrogatories can and should be a useful, relatively inexpensive discovery device, but unfortunately this seems to be true only in theory. Too often the art of answering interrogatories *408seems to be to provide answers that give nothing away.
Because the medical expert was absolutely essential to plaintiffs case and defendant could show no undue prejudice, the trial court quite properly handled the problem of the unresponsive interrogatory answers by postponing the trial a day and ordering depositions at plaintiffs expense. I agree that what happened at the depositions did not warrant dismissal of the lawsuit.